2013-00154157-CU-PA

Wafiullah Wahidi vs. M.H. Baldwin Company, Inc.

Nature of Proceeding:   Motion to Strike

Filed By:  Robertson, Stephen W.

Defendants’ Motion to Strike Specified Portions of Plaintiff’s form Complaint is
GRANTED, in its entirety, with leave to amend. C.C.P., sec. 435, 436.

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges a single motor vehicle (negligence) cause of action,
together with a prayer for punitive damages against defendants M.H. Baldwin Co., Inc.
and Jonathan Ronald Boyd,  for personal injuries incurred by plaintiff when Boyd in
repossessing plaintiff’s vehicle drove his tow truck away while plaintiff was attempting
to retrieve possessions from his car.          Civil Code, sec. 3294 requires proof by clear and convincing evidence that the
defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, for plaintiff to recover
punitive damages.

Plaintiff is required to state facts, not merely contentions, deductions or conclusions of
fact or law.  When nondeliberate injury is charged, allegations that the defendant’s
conduct was wrongful, willful, wanton, reckless or unlawful do not support a claim for
exemplary damages; such allegations are devoid of any factual assertions supporting
a conclusion petitioners acted with oppression, fraud or malice. Smith v. Superior
Court (1992) 10 Cal. App. 4th 1033, 1041.

As plaintiff has alleged only negligence here, and does not challenge defendants’ right
to repossess the vehicle, the facts alleged are insufficient to support a claim for
punitive damages.

The case of Dawes v. Superior Court (1980)  111 Cal. App. 3d 82, 88, relied upon by
opposing party plaintiff is distinguishable.  In Dawes, the court found that driving a
vehicle while intoxicated may in appropriate circumstances evidence a conscious
disregard of probable injury to others and be sufficient to warrant an award of punitive
damages.  No allegations of  DUI have been pled here. No intentional tort claims have
been pleaded, only negligence.

Conclusory allegations against the employer, that Baldwin is liable for punitive
damages based upon acts of an employee are insufficient to satisfy Civil Code, sec.
3294(b).

The motion to strike the punitive damage claims is granted, with leave to amend.

Plaintiff shall file and serve his First Amended Complaint not later than Monday, Feb.
24, 2014.  The responsive pleading shall be due filed and served 10 days thereafter,
15 days if service is by mail.

The minute order is effective immediately.  No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule
3.1312 or further notice is required.