Case Name: Manuel Furtado, et al. v. Gardner Trucking, Inc., et al.
Case No.: 16-CV-294165

Motion to Strike the Punitive Damages Allegations in the Complaint of plaintiffs Manuel and Noel Furtado by Defendant Gardner Trucking, Inc.

Factual and Procedural Background

This is a negligence action arising out of an automobile collision brought by Manuel Furtado and his wife Noel Furtado (“Plaintiffs”) against defendants Gregory Dwayne Wells (“Wells”) and his employer Gardner Trucking, Inc. (“Defendant”).

According to the allegations in the form complaint, on July 21, 2014, Plaintiffs were driving on Highway 152 east of Ferguson Road when a truck owned by Defendant and operated by Wells struck their vehicle. On this basis, Plaintiffs assert causes of action against Defendant and Wells for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence. Plaintiffs also pray for punitive damages.

In support of their prayer for punitive damages, Plaintiffs allege Wells lost control of the vehicle, thereby causing the collision, due to an altered mental state resulting from his uncontrolled diabetes. Wells knew of his condition, had a history of feeling light headed and fainting due to his diabetes, and was prescribed insulin, but refused to take his prescribed medication to manage his condition. Wells failed his fitness examinations required for the retention of his commercial driver’s license in 2012 and 2013, and knew he could not lawfully operate a commercial vehicle due to his insulin dependence and the severity of his diabetes, but continued to drive for Defendant anyway.

Plaintiffs allege Defendant knew of Wells’s condition and that his diabetes was not adequately controlled by the medication he was prescribed. Defendant knew, at the time it hired Wells, his certificate of fitness was limited and required close monitoring of his health as a condition of his continued operation of commercial vehicles. Defendant knew Wells failed both his 2012 and 2013 fitness examinations. Defendant placed him on administrative leave after he failed his fitness examinations, but pressured him to return to work following the 2013 suspension. Wells continued driving for Defendant, and in January 2014 went to the emergency room in the course of operating one of Defendant’s vehicles and was immediately hospitalized due to his uncontrolled diabetes. Defendant continued to employ Wells without restrictions from the time of his hospitalization through the time of the collision in July 2014. Defendant, its officers, and managing agents knew of the probable dangerous consequences of employing medically unfit drivers such as Wells, so long as the drivers presented certificates of fitness and commercial driver’s licenses, but continued to allow such drivers to operate its commercial vehicles.

Currently before the Court is Defendant’s motion to strike the punitive damages allegations in the complaint.
Motion to Strike

A. Request for Judicial Notice

In support of their opposition to the motion to strike, Plaintiffs request judicial notice of various court records and a transcript from another case arising out of the same vehicle collision. A court may only take judicial notice of matters that are relevant to the issues at hand. (Aquila, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 556, 569.) Plaintiffs fail to articulate and it is not otherwise apparent how these documents are relevant to the resolution of Defendant’s motion to strike. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice is DENIED.

B. Merits of Motion

Defendant moves to strike: (1) paragraph 14 of the form complaint in which Plaintiffs checked the box for punitive damages; (2) the allegation “recklessness, unlawfulness, and willful disregard for the safety of other human beings on the highway” from paragraph (d) in the second cause of action; (3) the exemplary damages attachment directed to Defendant in its entirety; and (4) any and all other punitive damages allegations.

A party may move to strike out “any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 435, subd. (b)(1), 436.) If a claim for punitive damages is not properly pleaded, it may be stricken. (See Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 164.) Punitive damages are recoverable when “the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).) The ultimate facts underlying a claim for punitive damages must be specifically alleged. (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.)

In this case, the punitive damages allegations against Defendant are framed in terms of recklessness, willfulness, malice, and oppression. Defendant argues Plaintiffs’ allegations do not support punitive damages based on malice. “‘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 or safety of others.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(1).) “Nonintentional 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.” (Peterson v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 147, 158.)

Defendant argues Plaintiffs fail to allege it knew Wells’s diabetes could cause an altered mental state that would render him unfit to drive. Plaintiffs do not allege verbatim that Defendant knew Wells’s diabetes could cause an altered mental state. Even so, they allege Defendant knew of Wells’s uncontrolled diabetes from the time of his hiring, knew his certificate of fitness was limited, knew of his failed fitness examinations in 2012 and 2013, and otherwise knew Wells was unfit to operate a commercial vehicle because of his uncontrolled diabetes and refusal to take medication to control his condition. Plaintiffs therefore sufficiently allege Defendant knew of Wells’s medical condition and the risks and dangers his condition posed. Defendant does not otherwise articulate why Plaintiffs must specifically allege it knew his diabetes could possibly cause an altered mental state in light of their many other allegations as to its knowledge of Wells’s medical condition, unfitness to drive, and his difficulties obtaining a certificate of fitness. Defendant’s argument therefore lacks merit.

Defendant’s only other argument advanced in support of its motion is that Plaintiffs’ allegations demonstrate it affirmatively took precautions and took care to protect the rights and safety of others in employing Wells. In support of its argument, Defendant points to Plaintiffs’ allegations Wells had a certificate of fitness and license at the time of the collision and was not allowed to drive following his 2012 and 2013 failed fitness examinations. While Defendant may have technically followed the law in allowing Wells to operate one of its vehicles based on his certificate of fitness and license at the time of the collision, Plaintiffs allege its conduct was malicious because it had sufficient knowledge of the danger of employing Wells despite his certificate of fitness and license. In essence, Plaintiffs claim Defendant should not have relied on Wells’s certificate of fitness, which they appear to suggest was improvidently issued, given Defendant’s overwhelming knowledge Wells was not in fact fit to drive due to his uncontrolled diabetes. Defendant’s argument goes to the truth of whether it was justified in relying on the certificate of fitness, but the Court at this stage is merely looking to whether the allegations in the complaint are facially sufficient to support a claim for pleading purposes. Given Plaintiffs indeed allege Defendant acted in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others despite knowledge of the probable dangerous consequences of employing unfit drivers like Wells, the punitive damages allegations are sufficient. Defendant’s argument therefore lacks merit.

None of the arguments advanced by Defendant are meritorious. The motion to strike the punitive damages allegations from the complaint is therefore DENIED.