“Clear and convincing evidence” is the standard for proving the damages, not for pleading them. Civ. Code §3294(a). Contrary to the position in the motion, there is no heightened pleading requirement for these damages. In Defendant’s cited case, Lehto v. Underground Construction Co., the court did not hold that these damages must be alleged with particularity but that “the facts and circumstances which constitute the fraud should bet set out clearly, concisely, and with sufficient particularity to apprise the opposite party of what he is called on to answer, and to enable the court to determine whether, on the facts pleaded, there is any foundation, prima facie at least, for the charge of [punitive damages based on] fraud.” Lehto v. Underground Constr. Co. (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 933, 944 (emphasis added).

To support a claim for punitive damages, the complaint need only allege “ultimate facts” of the defendant’s oppression, fraud, or malice. Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood Apartments (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1055 (emphasis added).

As relevant here, “malice” means despicable conduct carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others. Civ. Code §3294(c)(1). “Oppression” means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights. Civ. Code §3294(c)(2). Despicable conduct is conduct that is so “vile, base, contemptible, miserable, wretched or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people.” Scott v. Phoenix Schools, Inc. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 702, 715. The conduct need not be all of the above, but reasonably characterized as one of these descriptions.

Another test is whether the conduct can be “described as ‘[having] the character of outrage frequently associated with crime.” American Airlines, Inc. v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1017, 1051.

Here, the complaint’s allegations appear sufficient to support the claim for purposes of pleading. The complaint alleges that defendant caused his vehicle to hit plaintiff’s vehicle, causing plaintiff to lose consciousness, and then defendant turned right and left the scene of the accident. It could potentially be viewed as “base” and conduct that “would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people”. American Airlines, Inc. v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1017, 1050. As Plaintiff alleges, California Vehicle Code §20001 et seq. prohibits a driver who caused injury to another person from immediately leaving the accident, without offering assistance to the person injured, providing required personal information, and reporting the accident. A violation is punishable by imprisonment or a fine. Veh. Code §20001(b).

“Although a violation of section 20001 is popularly denominated ‘hit-and-run,’ the act made criminal thereunder is not the ‘hitting’ but the ‘running.” People v. Valdez (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 82, 87. “Vehicle Code section 20001, subdivision (b) makes it a felony for the driver of a vehicle involved in an injury accident to fail to immediately stop the vehicle and provide the information and assistance required by Vehicle Code sections 20003 and 20004. The failure to comply with those statutory obligations constitutes a felony regardless of whether the driver was at fault or responsible for the accident.” Corenbaum v. Lampkin (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1340. “The purpose of Vehicle Code section 20001 is to prevent drivers involved in injury accidents from leaving injured persons in distress and in need of medical care and from attempting to avoid potential criminal and civil liability for the accident.” Id.

Under the circumstances, the Court will deny the motion to strike the punitive damages claim. Defendant to answer within 15 days. Plaintiff to give notice.