Case Number: BC669667 Hearing Date: January 16, 2018 Dept: 97

47

norma sidhu,

Plaintiff,

v.

joel raymond stiver,

Defendant.

Case No.: BC669667

Hearing Date: January 16, 2018

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion to strike punitive damages

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of an alleged motor vehicle accident between Plaintiff Norma Sidhu (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Joel Raymond Stiver (“Defendant”) that occurred on December 10, 2015. The Complaint was filed on July 24, 2017.

Defendant moves to strike paragraph 8 for the prayer for damages, which seeks punitive damages.

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to CCP §436, the court may “[s]trike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter” contained in the pleading or “[s]trike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.

Punitive damages may be recovered upon a proper showing of malice, fraud, or oppression. (Civ. Code, §3294(a).) “Malice” is defined as conduct intended to cause injury to a person, or despicable conduct carried on with a willful and conscious disregard for the rights or safety of others. (Turman v. Turning Point of Cent. Cal., Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63.) “Oppression” is defined as despicable conduct subjecting a person to cruel and unjust hardship, in conscious disregard of the person’s rights. (Ibid.) Lastly, “Fraud” is defined as an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known by defendant, with intent to deprive a person of property, rights or otherwise cause injury. (Ibid.)

Conclusory allegations, devoid of any factual assertions, are insufficient to support a conclusion that parties acted with oppression, fraud or malice. (Smith v. Sup. Ct. (1992) 10 Cal. App. 4th 1033, 1042.) A motion to strike punitive damages allegations, specifically, may lie where the facts alleged do not rise to the level of “malice, fraud or oppression” required to support a punitive damages award. (See e.g., Turman v. Turning Point of Central Calif., Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63.)

DISCUSSION

The allegations in the complaint regarding Defendant’s conduct are insufficient to support the imposition of punitive damages. The complaint alleges that Defendant knew, or should have known, that his acts and omissions regarding the entrustment, maintenance, control, management, driving, manufacture, operation, repair, and/or inspection of his vehicle constituted a dangerous and unreasonable risk of harm. (Compl., ¶12.) Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant’s negligence, carelessness, recklessness, and/or unlawfulness caused Plaintiff’s injuries. (Id., ¶¶14-15.) These allegations, without more specific factual contentions amounting to a showing of malice, oppression, or despicable conduct, have the character of ordinary negligent driving and do not show aggravating circumstances warranting punitive damages.

//

//

//

//

Conclusion and Order

Defendant’s unopposed motion to strike is granted as requested.

Defendant is ordered to provide notice of this order.