Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 22STCV33027, Date: 2023-03-21 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV33027 Hearing Date: March 21, 2023 Dept: 29
TENTATIVE
Defendant Pibe’s
Auto LLC’s motion to strike punitive damages against it is GRANTED with 30 days
leave to amend.
Legal Standard
Pursuant to Code of
Civil Procedure, section 436, “the court may, upon a motion made pursuant to
Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper:
(a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any
pleading. (b) Strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in
conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the
court.” The grounds for a motion to strike must “appear on the face of
the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to
take judicial notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437.)
Any party may move to
strike the whole or any part of a pleading within the time allotted to respond
to the pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1).) The
allegations of a complaint “must be liberally construed, with a view to
substantial justice between the parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.)
The court “read[s] allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a
whole, all parts in their context, and assume[s] their truth.” (Clauson
v. Sup. Ct. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255 (Clauson).)
Discussion
Meet and Confer
The motion to strike is accompanied by the declaration of Erika
Sandler, which satisfies the meet and confer requirement. (Code Civ. Proc. §
435.5.)
Merits
Defendant moves to strike portions of Plaintiff’s
Complaint praying for punitive damages, arguing that plaintiff has failed to
plead allegations which give rise to punitive damages.
“To support punitive
damages, the complaint ... must allege ultimate facts of the defendant's
oppression, fraud, or malice.” (Cyrus v. Haveson (1976) 65
Cal.App.3d 306, 316-317 (Cyrus).) “Malice” is
conduct intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or
despicable conduct which is carried on with a willful and conscious disregard
of the rights or safety of others. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(1).)
“‘Punitive damages are proper only when the tortious conduct rises to levels of
extreme indifference to the plaintiff’s rights, a level which decent citizens
should not have to tolerate.’ [Citation.]” (Lackner v. North (2006) 135
Cal.App.4th 1188, 1210.) “As amended to include [despicable], the [Civil Code
section 3294] plainly indicates that absent an intent to injure the plaintiff,
‘malice’ requires more than a ‘willful and conscious’ disregard of the
plaintiffs’ interests. The additional component of ‘despicable conduct’ must be
found.” (College Hospital Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704,
725.) The statute’s reference to despicable conduct represents a “new
substantive limitation on punitive damage awards.” (Id.) Despicable
conduct is “conduct which is so vile, base, contemptible, miserable, wretched
or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent
people. Such conduct has been described as ‘having the character of outrage
frequently associated with crime.’” (Tomaselli v. Transamerica Ins. Co.
(1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1287.)
A “conclusory
characterization of defendant’s conduct as intentional, willful and fraudulent
is a patently insufficient statement of ‘oppression, fraud, or malice, express
or implied,’ ” and inadequate to support punitive damages. (Brousseau
v. Jarrett (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 864, 872 (Brousseau).)
Further, “[t]here must be evidence that defendant acted with
knowledge of the probable dangerous consequences to plaintiff’s interests and
deliberately failed to avoid these consequences.” (Flyer’s Body Shop Profit
Sharing Plan v. Ticor Title Ins. Co. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1149, 1155; see
also Angie M. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1228
[“Conscious disregard for the safety of another may be sufficient where the
defendant is aware of the probably dangerous consequences of his or her conduct
and he or she willfully fails to avoid such consequences”].)
An employer shall not be liable for punitive damages based on the
acts of an employee, unless the employer had advance knowledge of the unfitness
of the employee and employed him or her with a conscious disregard of the
rights or safety of others or authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct for which
damages are awarded, or was personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.
With respect to a corporate employer, the advance knowledge and conscious
disregard, authorization, ratification or act of oppression, fraud, or malice
must be on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent of the
corporation. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (b).)
Here, the FAC alleges that the
Honda Accord Decedent was a passenger in at the time of the collision was taken
to Defendant Pibe’s Auto LLC for a wheel alignment and two new tires. It
additionally alleges that the Honda left the travel lane of the 210 Freeway in
part due to the faulty maintenance conducted on it. The FAC alleges that
Defendant Pibe’s was negligent because it failed to properly conduct the work described
herein on the Honda; failed to hire and retain a properly trained mechanic;
failed to train its mechanics; failed to properly inspect its equipment; and
failed to properly inspect its work.
Plaintiffs fail to allege facts evidencing malice, oppression, or
fraud with the requisite specificity required to state a prima facie claim for
punitive damages. Plaintiff only alleges that Defendant failed to
properly hire and train a mechanic, and properly inspect its equipment and
work. These are conclusory statements, and further, only form the basis
of a negligence claim and do not evidence the conscious disregard or despicable
conduct necessary to plead a cause of action for punitive damages.
Conclusion
Accordingly,
Defendant’s motion to strike punitive damages against it is GRANTED with 30
days leave to amend.
Moving party to give notice.