Case Name: Lucia Arredondo, et al. v. Ravinderpal Singh, et al.
Case No.: 16-CV-292098

Currently before the Court is defendant Saini Trucking, Inc.’s (“Saini”) motion to strike portions of the complaint of plaintiffs Lucia Arredondo, Evangeline Arredondo, and Josephine Arredondo (collectively, “Plaintiffs”).

This is a personal injury action. In their complaint, Plaintiffs allege the following: On July 10, 2014, Plaintiffs were traveling northbound on Highway 17 south of Los Gatos, CA. (Compl., ¶ 18.) At that time, defendant Ravinderpal Singh (“Singh”), an employee of Saini, lost control of his commercial truck/trailer after the brakes failed. (Compl., ¶¶ 14, 18.) The truck collided with Plaintiffs’ vehicle, causing Plaintiffs to suffer severe injuries. (Compl., ¶ 18.) At the time of the incident, Singh had only three months experience as a commercial driver and little or no training. (Compl., ¶ 40.) In addition, Saini knew the truck/trailer combo had previously exhibited shimmying and directed Singh to use the vehicle in violation of the Vehicle Code and Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, which require that a truck/trailer not be operated until fully repaired. (Compl., ¶ 40.) Saini further directed Singh to use Highway 17 to avoid vehicle inspection on Highway 101 even though the truck/trailer combination did not have a secondary break system necessary for the use of such a vehicle in the mountains. (Compl., ¶ 40.) The complaint asserts four causes of action for: (1) negligence, (2) negligent hiring, training and supervision, (3) negligent infliction of emotional distress, and (4) intentional tort.

On April 28, 2016, Saini filed the instant motion to strike Plaintiffs’ request for punitive damages. Plaintiffs filed their opposition on May 19, 2016. On May 25, 2016, Saini filed its reply.

A. Request for Judicial Notice

Saini asks the Court to take judicial notice of the complaint filed in this action. The request is GRANTED. (See Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)

B. Motion to Strike Request for Punitive Damages

Saini asserts that the request for punitive damages should be stricken because the complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to support a finding of malice.

To recover punitive damages, a plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to show that the defendant is guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. (Civ. Code, § 3294.) “‘Malice’ means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(1).) “To establish conscious disregard, the plaintiff must show ‘that the defendant was aware of the probable consequences of his conduct and that he wilfully and deliberately failed to avoid the consequences.’ [Citation.]” (Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood Apartments (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1055; see also Peterson v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 147, 158 [stating that “[n]onintentional conduct comes within the definition of malicious acts punishable by the assessment of punitive damages when a party intentionally performs an act from which he knows, or should know, it is highly probable that harm will result”].) A plaintiff must plead specific facts from which the conscious disregard of probable injury to others may reasonably be inferred. (Dawes v. Sup. Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 82, 90.) Punitive damages are appropriate only if a defendant’s acts are reprehensible, fraudulent or in blatant violation of law or policy. (Tomaselli v. Transamerica Ins. Co. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1287; see also Woolstrum v. Mailloux (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 10 [stating that “[c]onduct which warrants punitive damages must be of ‘such severity or shocking character [as] warrants the same treatment as accorded to willful misconduct – conduct in which defendant intends to cause harm’”].) Mere carelessness or negligence does not justify the imposition of punitive damages. (Tomaselli, supra, 25 Cal.App.4th at p. 1287; see also Woolstrum, supra, 141 Cal.App.3d Supp. at p. 10 [stating that “[c]onduct which may be characterized as unreasonable, negligent, grossly negligent, or reckless does not satisfy the highly culpable state of mind warranting punitive damages”].) Allegations that the defendant violated the Vehicle Code by speeding, driving with defective equipment or running a stop sign, without more, are insufficient to allege a claim for punitive damages. (Dawes, supra, 111 Cal.App.3d at p. 90; see also Taylor v. Sup. Ct. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 899-900 [stating that “ordinarily, routine negligent or even reckless disobedience of traffic laws would not justify an award of punitive damages”].)

Here, Plaintiffs do not allege specific facts indicating that Saini was aware of the probable dangerous consequences of its conduct and wilfully and deliberately failed to avoid those consequences. (Spinks, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at p. 1055.) In particular, while the complaint states that Singh lost control of the truck due to the failure of the brakes (Compl., ¶ 40), Plaintiffs do not allege specific facts indicating that brakes were actually defective or required maintenance, Saini knew or should have known of the condition of the brakes, and Saini wilfully and deliberately failed to fix them. As such, the complaint fails to state facts from which malice can be inferred. Accordingly, Saini’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages is GRANTED WITH 10 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND.