Case Number: BC609533??? Hearing Date: April 25, 2016??? Dept: 98
REHANA KATHERINE ABBAS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
MARKUS SCOTT LIEPINS, et al.,
Defendants.
CASE NO: BC609533
[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS? MOTION TO STRIKE CERTAIN PORTIONS OF COMPLAINTDept. 98
1:30 p.m.
April 25, 2016
On February 5, 2016, Plaintiffs Rehana Katherine Abbas and Timothy John Ogburn (?Plaintiffs?) filed this action against Defendants Markus Scott Liepins and Diane Biddick Liepins (?Defendants?) for alleged damages arising out of a May 24, 2015 vehicle collision. Plaintiffs allege that ?Defendant Markus Scott Liepins was suspected to be intoxicated? and was found to have been drinking. Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs seek punitive damages. Defendants now move to strike Plaintiffs? prayer for punitive damages and all references to malice, oppression, or fraud from the Complaint.
?Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof ?.? Cal. Code of Civ. Proc., ? 435(b)(1). ?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) [s]trike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading [or] (b) [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.? Id., ?? 436(a)-(b).
?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.? Cal. Civil Code ? 3294(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.? Id., ? 3294(c)(1). ??Oppression? means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person?s rights.? Id., ? 3294(c)(2). ??Punitive damages are proper only when the tortious conduct rises to levels of extreme indifference to the plaintiff?s rights, a level which decent citizens should not have to tolerate.? [citation].? Lackner v. North (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1188, 1210. They are ?typically awarded for intentional torts? while ?cases involving unintentional torts are far fewer.? Id., at 1212.
The California Supreme Court has held that punitive damages may be imposed for driving while intoxicated in certain circumstances. Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890. ?One who willfully consumes alcoholic beverages to the point of intoxication, knowing that he thereafter must operate a motor vehicle, thereby combining sharply impaired physical and mental faculties with a vehicle capable of great force and speed, reasonably may be held to exhibit a conscious disregard of the safety of others.? Id., at 897. Taylor fell short, however, of holding that punitive damages are always appropriate in cases involving driving while intoxicated. The Court noted, ?we have concluded that the act of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated may constitute an act of ?malice? under ? 3294 if performed under circumstances which disclose a conscious disregard of the probable dangerous consequences.? Id., at 892 (emphasis added). The defendant in Taylor was alleged to have previously caused a serious automobile accident while driving under the influence, to have been arrested and convicted for drunk driving on numerous occasions, and to be an alcoholic well aware of the serious nature of his alcoholism.
Notably, a subsequent decision held that driving while intoxicated does not always give rise to a claim for punitive damages. ?[W]e do not agree that the risk created generally by one who becomes intoxicated and decides nevertheless to drive a vehicle on the public streets is the same as the risk created by an intoxicated driver?s decision to zigzag in and out of traffic at 65 miles per hour in a crowded beach recreation area at 1:30 in the afternoon on a Sunday in June. The risk of injury to others from ordinary driving while intoxicated is certainly foreseeable, but it is not necessarily probable. The risk of injury to others from [the defendant?s] conduct under the circumstances alleged was probable.? Dawes v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 82, 89.
Further, in 1987 the legislature amended Civil Code ? 3294 to include a requirement that conduct in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others be ?despicable? in order to support the imposition of punitive damages.
Absent additional facts, the Court finds Plaintiffs? allegations to be insufficient to support the imposition of punitive damages. Therefore, Defendants? Motion to Strike is GRANTED WITH TWENTY DAYS? LEAVE TO AMEND.
Dated this 25th day of April, 2016
Hon. Holly J. Fujie
Judge of the Superior Court