Judge William A. Crowfoot, Case Number: 23AHCV01771, Date: 2025-05-30 Tentative Ruling

Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCV01771, Date: 2025-05-30 Tentative Ruling

On August 3, 2023, plaintiff Myong Choi (“Plaintiff”) filed this action for strict liability and negligence arising from a dog bite that took place on November 16, 2022. Defendant Amanda Han (“Defendant”) filed a motion to strike on February 27, 2025, which aims to strikes Plaintiff’s requests for punitive damages pursuant to Civil Code sections 3294 and 3340.

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.)

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.)

To impose punitive damages under Civil Code section 3294, “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.) 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.) 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”].)

Here, Plaintiff broadly alleges that Defendant acted “with conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others” by owning a large dog with a vicious and dangerous propensity to attach others. (Compl., ¶¶ 34-35.) Plaintiff claims that Defendant “knew that should the large dog see another person, it could (and did) attack” and “made a conscious decision to allow the large dog to attack another person.” (Compl., ¶¶ 36-37.) However, there are no facts supporting this conclusory claim of prior knowledge or conscious disregard. Accordingly, the motion to strike the allegations and prayer for punitive damages pursuant to Civil Code section 3294 is GRANTED.

Civil Code section 3340 permits the recovery of exemplary damages for “wrongful injuries to animals being subjects of property, committed willfully or by gross negligence.” The statute does not apply to injuries to humans, such as the injuries alleged by Plaintiff. Although Plaintiff argues in her opposition brief that “California courts have recognized [the] application [of Civil Code section 3340] in cases where animals injure humans”, the sole case cited in support of this proposition, Pfeifer v. John Crane, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1270, does not even mention Civil Code section 3340. Therefore, the motion to strike the allegations and prayer for punitive damages pursuant to Civil Code section 3340 is GRANTED.

Defendant’s motion to strike is GRANTED in its entirety. The Court declines to grant leave to amend at this time. If, in the course of discovery, Plaintiff determines additional facts exist which give rise to an award of punitive damages, Plaintiff may file a motion for leave to amend the Complaint.

William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court

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.