2014-00158887-CU-PO

Natalie Gutierrez vs. Long Bui

Nature of Proceeding:      Hearing on Demurrer

Filed By:   Rogers, Kevin D.           Defendant Long Bui’s unopposed demurrer to the third cause of action in Plaintiff
Natalie Gutierrez’s complaint is sustained without leave to amend.

In this action arising out of an incident in which Plaintiff was allegedly attacked by
Defendant’s dog, Plaintiff asserts causes of action for strict liability, negligence and
“exemplary damages.”

The demurrer to the third cause of action for “exemplary damages” is sustained
without leave to amend.  There is no cause of action for punitive or exemplary
damages.  Punitive damages are merely a remedy incident to a cause of action and
not an independent cause of action.  (Hilliard v. A.H. Robins Co. (1983) 148
Cal.App.3d 374, 391-392.)

Leave to amend is not given as there is no possibility of amendment which would cure
the deficiency and because Plaintiff expressly filed a notice of non-opposition  to
Defendant’s motion to strike seeking to strike the punitive damages allegations.

The notice of demurrer does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system
as required by Local Rule 1.06(D).  Defendant’s counsel is ordered to notify Plaintiff’s
counsel immediately of the tentative ruling system and to be available at the hearing,
in person or by telephone, in the event Plaintiff’s counsel appears without following the
procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

This minute order is effective immediately.  No formal order pursuant to CRC 3.1312 or
other notice is required.

Item  10    2014-00158887-CU-PO

Natalie Gutierrez vs. Long Bui

Nature of Proceeding:  Motion to Strike

Filed By:  Rogers, Kevin D.

Defendant Long Bui’s unopposed motion to strike portions of Plaintiff Natalie
Guitierrez’s complaint is granted.

In this action arising out of an incident in which Plaintiff was allegedly attacked by
Defendant’s dog, Plaintiff asserts causes of action for strict liability, negligence and
“exemplary damages.”  Defendant moves to strike punitive damages allegations. In
order to state claim for punitive damages, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant is
guilty of “oppression, fraud, or malice.”  (Civil Code §3294(a).)  “Malice” under Civil
Code §3294(c)(1) means conduct intended to injure the plaintiff or despicable conduct
by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of others. To justify a claim for
punitive damages, there must be something more than mere negligence.

Plaintiff filed a statement of non-opposition indicating that she does not oppose
Defendant’s motion.

The motion is granted.  Paragraph 18 of the complaint and Page 4, line 4 are stricken
from the complaint.
The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as
required by Local Rule 1.06(D).  Defendant’s counsel is ordered to notify Plaintiff’s
counsel immediately of the tentative ruling system and to be available at the hearing,
in person or by telephone, in the event Plaintiff’s counsel appears without following the
procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

This minute order is effective immediately.  No formal order pursuant to CRC 3.1312 or
other notice is required.