Emily Gularte, et al. v. Charles Alan Stimson
Case No: 19CV01824
Hearing Date: Tue Jun 25, 2019 9:30

Nature of Proceedings: Motion Strike Punitive Damages Claim

Motion of Defendant to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs’ Complaint

ATTORNEYS:

For Plaintiffs Paul H. Gularte and Emily Gularte: Self-represented

For Defendant Charles Alan Stimson: Christopher E. Deatherage, Law Offices of Dan D. Endoso & Associates

RULING: For the reasons set forth herein, the motion of defendant Charles Alan Stimson to strike portions of plaintiffs’ complaint and civil cover sheet is granted in part, with leave to amend. The motion is granted to strike the check from the box in paragraph 14(a)(2) of the complaint (asserting a claim for punitive damages). In all other respects the motion is denied. Plaintiffs Paul H. Gularte and Emily Gularte shall file and serve their first amended complaint on or before July 10, 2019.

Background:

On April 5, 2019, plaintiffs Paul Gularte and Emily Gularte filed their complaint in this action against defendant Charles Alan Stimson. The complaint is set forth on a Judicial Council form and contains two cause of action attachments for motor vehicle negligence. Both cause of action forms allege a motor vehicle accident occurring on December 7, 2018, in Santa Barbara with defendant Stimson as the party who operated the motor vehicle. (Complaint, ¶¶ MV-1, MV-2.) Plaintiffs have checked the box seeking punitive damages on the complaint form (Complaint, ¶ 14(a)(2)), but have not attached the exemplary damages attachment form (Judicial Council form PLD-PI-001(6)) or otherwise provided any statement of facts upon which the claim for punitive damages is asserted apart from the bare allegation of motor vehicle negligence.

Stimson moves to strike the prayer for punitive damages from the complaint and the statement of punitive damages from the civil case cover sheet.

Plaintiffs oppose the motion, asserting that the accident was a hit-and-run and that Stimson was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol.

Analysis:

“The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.) “Irrelevant matter” includes a “demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.10, subds. (b)(3), (c).) “The grounds for a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437, subd. (a).)

“In order to survive a motion to strike an allegation of punitive damages, the ultimate facts showing an entitlement to such relief must be pled by a plaintiff. [Citations.] In passing on the correctness of a ruling on a motion to strike, judges read allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth. [Citations.] In ruling on a motion to strike, courts do not read allegations in isolation.” (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.)

“In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).) “ ‘Malice’ means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (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, subd. (c)(2).)

As quoted above, in ruling on a motion to strike punitive damages allegations, the court looks only to the allegations alleged in the complaint. The court does not consider facts asserted only in opposition to the motion to strike. The complaint alleges only that a motor vehicle accident occurred as a result of the negligence of Stimson. “Inasmuch as Civil Code section 3294 requires as a prerequisite to the recovery of punitive damages that the defendant ‘has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice,’ the cases have uniformly recognized that proof of negligence, even gross negligence, or recklessness is insufficient to warrant an award of punitive damages.” (Dawes v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 82, 87-88.) The allegation of negligence is insufficient to support a claim for punitive damages. The motion to strike will therefore be sustained.

“[T]he act of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated may constitute an act of ‘malice’ under section 3294 if performed under circumstances which disclose a conscious disregard of the probable dangerous consequences.” (Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 892.) The assertions of fact in the opposition may or may not fall within the circumstances by which punitive damages are permitted—that issue is not now before the court. Plaintiffs are entitled to plead their facts and the Court will grant plaintiffs leave to amend.

The motion also seeks to strike from the civil cover sheet the statement regarding punitive damages. The civil cover sheet is not a pleading (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 420, 422.10) and hence does not affect the plaintiffs’ claims against defendant. “The cover sheet is used for statistical purposes ….” (Edmon & Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2019) ¶ 6:40.1.) For statistical purposes, the civil cover sheet correctly states that plaintiffs seek by their original complaint an award of punitive damages. The motion to strike portions of the civil cover sheet will be denied.