Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 21STCV36237, Date: 2022-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV36237    Hearing Date: December 5, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.         BACKGROUND

Alina Landver (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Keagan Serdar and Laura Serdar (collectively, “Defendants”) on October 1, 2021, stating causes of action for (1) motor vehicle, (2) general negligence, and (3) negligent entrustment of a motor vehicle.

Defendants timely filed this motion to strike portions of Plaintiff’s complaint on October 3, 2022, after Plaintiff granted Defendants an extension to respond to the complaint.  Defendants base their motion on the argument that Plaintiff cannot recover punitive damages against Defendants under the facts as alleged in the complaint.

II.       LEGAL STANDARD

Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 435 subd., (b)(1).)  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, subd. (a); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782 [“Matter in a pleading which is not essential to the claim is surplusage; probative facts are surplusage and may be stricken out or disregarded”].)  An immaterial or irrelevant allegation is one that is not essential to the statement of a claim or defense; is neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or defense; or a demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint.  (Code Civ Proc, § 431.10, subd. (b).)  The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437.)

“Before filing a motion to strike . . . the moving party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion to strike for the purpose of determining if an agreement can be reached that resolves the objections to be raised in the motion to strike.”  (Code Civ Proc., § 435.5, subd. (a).)  If no agreement is reached, the moving party shall file and serve with the motion to strike a declaration stating either: (1) the means by which the parties met and conferred and that the parties did not reach an agreement, or (2) that the party who filed the pleading failed to respond to the meet and confer request or otherwise failed to meet and confer in good faith.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 435.5, subd. (a)(3).) 

Punitive damages may be imposed where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.  (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).)  A motion to strike punitive damages is properly granted where a plaintiff does not state a prima facie claim for punitive damages, including allegations that defendant is guilty of oppression, fraud or malice.  (Turman v. Turning Point of Cent. California, Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63.)  “Mere negligence, even gross negligence, is not sufficient to justify such an award” for punitive damages.  (Kendall Yacht Corp. v. United California Bank (1975) 50 Cal. App. 3d 949, 958.)  The allegations supporting a request for punitive damages must be alleged with specificity; conclusory allegations without sufficient facts are not enough.  (Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1041-1042.)

III.      DISCUSSION

With respect to themeet and confer requirement, Defendant’s counsel declares that he attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel over the phone before sending a meet and confer letter.  (Herrera Decl., ¶ 6-7.)  Counsel for both parties then “discussed” this motion to strike and were unable to informally resolve this challenge to the complaint.  (Herrera Decl., ¶ 8-9.)  However, given the vague nature of defense counsel’s declaration, it is not clear whether the meet and confer requirements were met because Code of Civil Procedure section 435.5(a) requires the meet and confer process take place over the phone or in person.  Nevertheless, the Court proceeds to consider the merits of this motion.  The Court cautions the parties that failure to meet and confer as required in the future will result in the motion being taken off calendar.

Plaintiff cannot obtain punitive damages against Defendants.  Under Civil Code section 3294(a), punitive damages are only recoverable “where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice[.]” Plaintiff does not accuse Defendants of oppression, fraud or malice, and, even when assumed true, the factual allegations neither infer nor imply Defendants were guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.  For the first cause of action, Plaintiff merely alleges that “the acts of [Defendants] were negligent, the acts were the legal (proximate) cause of injuries and damages to [P]laintiff” and “the acts occurred on (date) 10.05.19 at (place) THE US INTERSTATE 5 Near Elysian Valley, Los Angeles CA.”  (Complaint p. 4.)  Similarly, for the second cause of action, Plaintiff alleges “Defendant KEAGAN SERDAR rear-ended Plaintiff with a vehicle owned by LAURA SERDAR, upon information and belief, at a freeway speed with great force due to inattention.”  (Complaint p. 5.)  Last, for the third cause of action, Plaintiff alleges Laura Serdar entrusted Keagan Serdar with the motor vehicle and that Keagan Serdar was a “careless and reckless driver.”  (Complaint p. 6, ¶ 3-4.)  Based on these foregoing allegations, an award of punitive damages would be inappropriate.

IV.      CONCLUSION

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to strike portions of the complaint is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice. 

            Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court’s website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.