Case Number: 18STCV00672 Hearing Date: January 16, 2019 Dept: 4A

Motion to Strike

The court considered the moving and opposition papers.

Plaintiffs Amrit Bassi and Riana Kiss (collectively “plaintiffs”) filed a complaint on October 11, 2018, against defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. and Raiser, LLC for motor vehicle negligence, general negligence, and negligent hiring, retention, training, and supervision.

On December 20, 2018, defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. (“defendant”) filed a motion to strike punitive damages from the complaint.

The Court notes that Counsel’s declaration satisfies the meet and confer requirement under CCP § 435.5(a)(3). (Bolin Decl., ¶¶ 4-7.)

Civil Code § 3294 authorizes the recovery of punitive damages in non-contract cases where “the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice . . . .” The Court in Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 894-95, found: “Something more than the mere commission of a tort is always required for punitive damages. There must be circumstances of aggravation or outrage, such as spite or ‘malice,’ or a fraudulent or evil motive on the part of the defendant, or such a conscious and deliberate disregard of the interests of others that his conduct may be called willful or wanton.”

“Malice” is defined in Civil Code §3294 to mean “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.” (Civil Code § 3294(c)(1).) As the Court noted in College Hospital v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 713, Section 3294 was amended in 1987 to require that, where malice is based on a defendant’s conscious disregard of a plaintiff’s rights, the conduct must be both despicable and willful. The Court in College Hospital held further that “despicable conduct refers to circumstances that are base, vile, or contemptible.” (Id. at 725 (citation omitted).)

In opposition, plaintiffs argue that their claim for punitive damages is based on defendants conduct in developing, implementing, and using the App in such a manner as to lead Doe Driver to be distracted while driving, requiring Doe Driver and other drivers to use the App and/or a GPS that causes driver distraction, and failing to adequately train or supervise drivers in their driving and/or use of the App and the dangers inherent therein, when defendants knew or had reason to know about the risks of using the App while driving. (Complaint, ¶¶ 39-40, 45-46.). The court finds that the allegations do not rise to the level of despicable conduct. Accordingly, the allegations are insufficient to support a claim for punitive damages.

The Court finds the following:

The motion to strike is GRANTED with 20 days’ leave to amend.

Moving defendant is ordered to provide notice of this order and file proof of service of such.