Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 25STCV00076, Date: 2025-04-29 Tentative Ruling



Case Number: 25STCV00076    Hearing Date: April 29, 2025    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

 

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

 

 

HEARING DATE:     April 29, 2025                        TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

                                                          

CASE:                         Norman Anchrum v. Gerald Howe

 

CASE NO.:                 25STCV00076           

 

MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF COMPLAINT

 

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant Gerald Howe

 

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on eCourt as of April 28, 2025

 

CASE HISTORY:

·         01/02/25: Complaint filed.

 

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

           

            This is a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff alleges that he was injured in a collision with Defendant’s vehicle while Defendant was driving under the influence.

 

Defendant moves to strike Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages.

           

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Defendant’s Motion to Strike is GRANTED.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Defendant moves to strike Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages.

 

Legal Standard

 

The court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436(a).) The court may also strike 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436 (b).) The grounds for a motion to strike are that the pleading has irrelevant, false or improper matter, or has not been drawn or filed in conformity with laws. (Id.). The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437.) “When the defect which justifies striking a complaint is capable of cure, the court should allow leave to amend.” (Vaccaro v. Kaiman (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 761, 768.) A motion to strike can be used where the complaint or other pleading has not been drawn or filed in conformity with applicable rules or court orders.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 436(b).) This provision is for "the striking of a pleading due to improprieties in its form or in the procedures pursuant to which it was filed."  (Ferraro v. Camarlinghi (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 509, 528 [emphasis in original].)

 

Meet and Confer

 

 Before filing a motion to strike, the moving party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who has filed the pleading subject to the motion to strike and file a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 435.5(a).) However, an insufficient meet and confer process is not grounds to grant or deny a motion to strike.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 435.5(a)(4).)

 

The Declaration of Defendant’s counsel states that he sent a single email to Plaintiff’s counsel on March 1, 2025, to which Plaintiff did not respond. (Declaration of Vincent H. Brunello ISO Mot. ¶¶ 3-4; Exh. B.) A single email is not an adequate meet and confer effort, as the statute requires the parties to meet and confer in person or by telephone before bringing a motion to strike. Defendant has not complied with his statutory obligations. Nevertheless, the Court will address the motion on the merits.

 

Punitive Damages

 

            Defendant moves to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages.

Civil Code section 3294 subdivision (a) governs the imposition of punitive damages against a defendant:

 

In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.”

 

(Civ. Code § 3294(a).) Civil Code section 3294(c) defines malice, oppression and fraud:

 

(1) ‘Malice’ means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.

 

(2) ‘Oppression’ means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights.

 

(3) ‘Fraud’ means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.

 

(Civ. Code § 3294(c) [bold emphasis added].) The Court of Appeal offers the following guidance as to the application of these provisions:

 

Generally, punitive damages may be awarded only when the trier of fact finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant acted with malice, fraud, or oppression. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).) As nonintentional torts support punitive damages when the defendant's conduct “involves conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others,” our focus is on malice and oppression. (Gawara v. United States Brass Corp. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1341, 1361 [74 Cal. Rptr. 2d 663].) As defined in the punitive damages statute, “[m]alice” encompasses “despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others,” and “[o]ppression” means “despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(1), (2).) The term “‘despicable,’” though not defined in the statute, is applicable to “circumstances that are ‘base,’ ‘vile,’ or ‘contemptible.’ ” (College Hospital Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 725 [34 Cal. Rptr. 2d 898, 882 P.2d 894], quoting 4 Oxford English Dict. (2d ed. 1989) p. 529.)

 

Under the statute, “malice does not require actual intent to harm. [Citation.] Conscious disregard for the safety of another may be sufficient where the defendant is aware of the probable dangerous consequences of his or her conduct and he or she willfully fails to avoid such consequences. [Citation.] Malice may be proved either expressly through direct evidence or by implication through indirect evidence from which the jury draws inferences. [Citation.]” (Angie M. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1228 [44 Cal. Rptr. 2d 197].)

 

(Pfeifer v. John Crane, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1299 (bold emphasis added).) To withstand a motion to strike punitive damages allegations, the complaint must set forth facts supporting a claim for punitive damages:

 

The mere allegation an intentional tort was committed is not sufficient to warrant an award of punitive damages. (Citation omitted.) Not only must there be circumstances of oppression, fraud or malice, but facts must be alleged in the pleading to support such a claim.

(Grieves v. Superior Court (Fox) (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166 (emphasis added).)

            Defendant first contends that Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages should be stricken because “there is not evidence that there was police response to the accident or evidence that Defendant was under the influence.” (Motion p.2:14-16.) This contention is not a basis for a motion to strike, as any deficiency must be apparent from the face of the pleadings. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437.) That said, Defendant also argues that the prayer should be stricken because the Complaint does not allege fraud and the limited factual allegations do not rise to the kind of “despicable conduct” necessary to establish malice or oppression. In this respect, the Court concurs with Defendant. Plaintiff’s sole factual allegation is that Defendant Howe was negligently operating a motor vehicle under the influence. (Complaint ¶¶ 10-11.) A bare assertion that this conduct constituted “despicable conduct” is not sufficient, as Plaintiff must allege specific facts setting forth the circumstances described in Civil Code section 3294(c). (See Grieves v. Superior Court (Fox), supra, 157 Cal.App.3d at 166.)

 

            The Court therefore finds that the prayer for punitive damages is not properly supported and must be stricken.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

            Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Strike is GRANTED.

 

            Moving Party to give notice.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

Dated:  April 29, 2025                                    ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

 


            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.

 



Website by Triangulus