Case Number: BC544373    Hearing Date: October 06, 2014    Dept: 93

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 93

HENRY NAVARRO,

Plaintiff(s),
v.

PRECISION ORTHOTICS & PROSTHETICS, INC., et al.,

Defendant(s). Case No.: BC544373

Hearing Date: October 6, 2014

[TENTATIVE] RULING RE:
DEFENDANT PRECISION ORTHOTICS & PROSTHETICS, INC.’S MOTION TO STRIKE

Defendant Precision Orthotics & Prosthetics, Inc.’s Motion to Strike is GRANTED with 20 days’ leave to amend.

Background

Plaintiff alleges that he was injured when his prosthetic leg, which was manufactured by Defendant Precision Orthotics & Prosthetics, Inc., malfunctioned and caused him to fall down. Defendant filed the instant motion to strike the request for punitive damages on July 8, 2014. The motion is unopposed.

Legal Standard

Cal. Civil Code Section 3294 authorizes the recovery of punitive damages in non-contract cases “where the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, express or implied . . . . ” Something more than the mere commission of a tort is always required for punitive damages. There must be circumstances of aggravation or outrage, such as spite or “malice,” or a fraudulent or evil motive on the part of the defendant, or such a conscious and deliberate disregard of the interests of others that his conduct may be called willful or wanton. (Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal. 3d 890, 894; Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166.)

Discussion

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges claims for strict liability, negligence and breach of warranty against Defendant. The only factual allegations regarding Defendant’s conduct are that it manufactured, assembled, designed, and sold the prosthetic leg that malfunctioned, causing Plaintiff to fall and sustain injuries. (Complaint ¶¶L-1-L-4.) There are no allegations with respect to the request for punitive damages, which is simply requested in the prayer for relief. (Complaint ¶14(a)(2).) These barebones allegations regarding Defendant’s conduct do not support a request for punitive damages. There is nothing to suggest that by manufacturing, assembling, designing or selling the prosthetic leg Defendant acted with malice, oppression or fraud. Therefore, the motion to strike the request for punitive damages is granted with leave to amend.

Defendant is ordered to give notice.

DATED: October 6, 2014
_________________________
Hon. Gail Ruderman Feuer
Judge of the Superior Court