Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 22AHCV01061, Date: 2023-11-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV01061    Hearing Date: November 7, 2023    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

This action was filed by plaintiffs Mario Garcia and Leonardo Garcia (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) on November 14, 2022. On July 27, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Plaintiffs allege that on November 14, 2020, at or around 5:50 p.m., they were each riding motorcycles on Little Tujunga Canyon Road when they became involved in a motor vehicle accident with defendants Joanna Esquivel (“Esquivel”) and Jennifer Soyohn Suh (“Suh”). (FAC, ¶¶ 1, 6, 9, 14.) Plaintiffs allege that at the time of the incident, Esquivel was operating a Nissan Altima owned by co-defendants Maria de Jesus Meza Hernandez (“Hernandez”) and Juan Molina (“Molina”), while Defendant Suh was operating a Lexus RX350.  (Id., ¶¶ 3, 5.) Plaintiffs further allege that Esquivel and Suh were each acting within the scope of their employment with Doe Defendants 11-20 and 31-40, respectively. (Id., ¶¶ 9-13.) 

Plaintiffs allege that Mario was injured when “[Suh’s vehicle] went into the lane that [Mario] was in and caused [Mario] to be thrown from the motorcycle he was riding, and/or when she refused to permit [Esquivel]’s entry into the lane that [Mario] was riding in, which caused [Mario] to be thrown from the motorcycle he was riding.” (Id., ¶ 12.) Plaintiffs further allege that the accident occurred when “[Esquivel] undertook to pass [Suh], and one or both vehicles went into the lane that [Mario] to be thrown from the motorcycle he was riding, which was coming from the opposite direction on Little Tujunga Canyon Road.” (Id., ¶ 15.)  Plaintiffs allege Leonardo was injured because he was riding a motorcycle behind his brother, Mario, and saw Mario being thrown from his motorcycle. (Id., ¶ 17.)

On August 29, 2023, Suh filed a stipulation reflecting an agreement with Plaintiffs to strike their claim for exemplary and punitive damages from the FAC.

On September 28, 2023, Esquivel, Molina, and Hernandez (collectively, “Defendants”) filed a motion to strike Plaintiffs’ request for exemplary and punitive damages. On October 30, 2023, Defendants filed a notice of non-opposition.

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).) 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.)

III.        DISCUSSION

Defendants move to strike the prayer for punitive damages included in Leonard’s NIED claim. 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.)

As with the original Complaint, the FAC is grounded in negligence and does not include specific allegations of fraud, malice, or oppression. Therefore, Defendants’ unopposed motion to strike is GRANTED.

IV.         CONCLUSION

Defendants’ motion to strike is GRANTED. The request for exemplary or punitive damages is stricken from the FAC as to Defendants.

Moving party to give notice.

Dated this 7th day of November, 2023

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court 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.