CIV537173 HENRY ALMENDAREZ VS. JOHN cU

HENRY ALMENDAREZ OWILI K. EISON

MARILENE CU KEVIN J. HERMANSON

11. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT TO ALLEGE PUNITIVE DAMAGES

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint to Allege Punitive Damages is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Despite the generally liberal rule in favor of amending pleadings, a “court should deny leave to amend where the facts are not in dispute and no liability exists under substantive law.” Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2017) ¶ 7:129.1, citing Jenkins v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 497, 535. While the issue on a motion for leave to amend generally concerns the allegations to be added, Plaintiff’s moving papers largely argue the evidence available—i.e. Plaintiff heavily focuses on the deposition transcript in which defendant John admits he “looked down at [his] phone.” Decl. of Bakhsheshian, Ex. A, pp. 64:19-22 and 68:12-16. Punitive damages must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. CACI No. 3940. This singular fact—that Plaintiff “looked down at” his phone, while stopped, within the 15 seconds prior to the collision, does not meet the clear and convincing standard. Moreover, the allegations proposed do not recite these facts; instead, the amendments allege that “Defendants violated California Vehicle Code, including but not limited to Vehicle Code Section 22450 (a), 23123, 23124, and 23125, so that Defendant is negligent per se.” Decl. of Bakhsheshian, Ex. F. These are allegations of negligence per se—they are not allegations of fraud, oppression, or malice that would be sufficient to give rise to a claim of punitive damages. While the Court is mindful of the liberal standard favoring amendment, the allegations here are so thin that it appears the actual punitive damages allegations would be subject to a motion to strike on these facts such that no liability for punitive damages exists on the facts to be alleged. Nevertheless, in deference to the liberal pleading standard and the fact that leave to amend may be granted up to, and even during, trial, the denial of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend is without prejudice to bring such a request in the future as discovery continues to unfold.