Case Number: 19STCV07362 Hearing Date: May 31, 2019 Dept: 2

Defendants’ Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint Pertaining to Punitive Damages, filed on 5/3/19 is DENIED. Defendant is ordered to answer within 10 days.

The court has discretion to strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter in any pleading or any part of a pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the law. Cal. Code Civ Procedure § 436.

To support a claim for punitive damages, Plaintiff must allege facts and circumstances showing conduct constituting malice, fraud or oppression. Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal. App. 3d 159, 166.

The predicate acts to support a claim for punitive damages must be intended to cause injury or must constitute “malicious conduct,” defined as “despicable conduct” carried on by Defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights of others. Civ Code § 3294(a). Oppressive conduct is defined as “despicable conduct” that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of a person’s rights. Cal Civ Code § 3294(c).

The Complaint alleges that Defendant, Jaime Depena, caused his vehicle to collide with Plaintiff’s vehicle. Complaint ¶ 20.

To support the claim for punitive damages, Plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating that “the defendant acted in such an outrageous and reprehensible manner that the jury could infer that he knowingly disregarded the substantial certainty of injury to others.” Dawes v. Superior Court, (1980) 111 Cal. App. 3d 82, 90.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant consumed alcohol and/or drugs and became intoxicated with the full knowledge that said intoxication could lead to serious injury. Complaint ¶ 20.

Defendant became intoxicated by drugs and/or alcohol and thereafter drove a car while in that condition, despite knowing before consuming drugs and/or alcohol that he would be driving a motor vehicle which he also knew was a safety hazard and dangerous to Plaintiff and others on the road. Complaint, ¶ 20.

The act of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated may constitute an act of “malice” under section 3294 if performed under circumstances which disclose a conscious disregard of the probable dangerous consequences. Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 897.

“Malice” requires “more than a ‘willful and conscious’ disregard of the Plaintiff’s interests. The additional component of ‘despicable conduct’ must be found.’” College Hospital Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal. 4th 704, 725.

The alleged conduct meets the threshold to support a claim for punitive damages.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.