Melody Isabelle Millis v. Carolyn Lucille Tulloch

Case Name:   Melody Isabelle Millis v. Carolyn Lucille Tulloch

Case No.:       1-14-CV-264094

 

Currently before the Court is defendant Carolyn Lucille Tulloch’s (“Tulloch”) motion to strike portions of the complaint of plaintiff Melody Isabelle Millis (“Millis”). Tulloch moves to strike portions of the complaint on the ground that it contains irrelevant, false, and improper matters. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a).) In particular, she moves to strike allegations pertaining to Millis’s request for exemplary damages.

 

Tulloch argues that the complaint lacks specific allegations supporting a claim for punitive damages. Instead, the alleged facts suggest that her conduct was no more than mere negligence. In opposition, Millis contends that Tulloch’s willful failure to follow basic traffic laws demonstrated a conscious disregard for the safety of others.

 

Here, the only facts Millis alleges in support of her claim for punitive damages are that Tulloch drove on the wrong side of the road and ran a red light. (Compl., ¶¶ 7, 14, 16, 24.) As these facts merely indicate that Tulloch negligently violated a number of traffic laws, these allegations are insufficient to support a claim for punitive damages.

(See Dawes v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 82, 90 [allegations that the defendant violated traffic laws by speeding, driving with defective equipment or running a stop sign, without more, insufficient to allege a claim for punitive damages]; Tomaselli v. Transamerica Ins. Co. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1287 [mere carelessness or negligence does not justify imposition of punitive damages].)

 

Accordingly, the motion to strike allegations pertaining to Millis’s request for exemplary damages is GRANTED WITH 10 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Copy the code below to your web site.
x 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *