Case Number: 19STCV16669 Hearing Date: September 10, 2019 Dept: 2

*** HEARING CONTINUED FROM 09/05/2019 TO THIS DATE FOR PRESENTATION OF ARGUMENT***

Defendant’s Motion to Strike Punitive and Exemplary Damages, filed on 7/25/19, 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).

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.

The First Amended Complaint alleges that Defendant drank alcohol in Pasadena, knowing from the outset that he must thereafter drive home to Redondo Beach. FAC ¶ 7. He drank to the point of intoxication and then operated his vehicle while intoxicated. ¶ 7-8. He knew the danger of driving a vehicle while intoxicated and was aware of the dangerous consequences. ¶ 10. He drank so much alcohol that his blood-alcohol level content far exceeded legal limits. ¶ 11.

His intoxication caused his speech to be slow, thick, slurred and mumbled, caused his breath to smell of alcohol, and caused his eyes to be red and watery. ¶ 12. He was so intoxicated he spilled wine all over his white pants. ¶ 14. Once intoxicated, Defendant operated his vehicle at a high rate of speed, claiming he was driving 50-55 mph in a residential area. ¶ 15. He failed to perceive that traffic had come to a stop and struck Plaintiff’s vehicle at a high rate of speed. ¶ 16. He struck Plaintiff’s vehicle with such force that it caused major damage to both vehicles, disabling both vehicles and pushing Plaintiff’s vehicle into the vehicle in front of her vehicle. ¶ 17. He was arrested for felony DUI. ¶ 22.

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. The allegations assert that Defendant drank alcohol knowing that he had to drive to return back home. He knew the danger of driving a vehicle while intoxicated and was aware of the dangerous consequences. ¶7-10. This demonstrates the required “conscious disregard” for the rights of others.

Plaintiff also alleges further aggravating circumstances to support the “despicable conduct” requirement in that Defendant was allegedly speeding to such a degree while in an intoxicated condition that he ended up striking Plaintiff’s vehicle with enough force to disable both vehicles and push Plaintiff’s vehicle into another vehicle. FAC ¶¶ 16-17.

Punitive damages are proper when the tortious conduct rises to levels of extreme indifference to the plaintiff’s rights, a level which decent citizens should not have to tolerate.’” American Airlines, Inc. v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter& Hampton (2002) 96 Cal. App. 4th 1017, 1051.

The allegations adequately meet that threshold to permit a jury to determine the issue.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.