What are punitive / exemplary damages?

Useful Rulings on Punitive / Exemplary Damages

Recent Rulings on Punitive / Exemplary Damages

1-25 of 10000 results

CATHAY BANK VS ACE HARDWARE CORPORATION

Again, at this point, this does not show a willful act by Defendant JMI to entitle Plaintiffs to punitive damages discovery against it. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2020

ANGELA WATSON VS GILBERT A. CABOT

Punitive Damages Defendants move to strike punitive damages on the grounds that Plaintiff has not plead oppressive or malicious conduct into the TAC, and that Plaintiff’s claim for negligent misrepresentation is defective as elaborated in the concurrent demurrer. In light of the demurrer, the only remaining cause of action is the 1st cause of action for negligent misrepresentation. “Punitive damages are recoverable in those fraud actions involving intentional, but not negligent misrepresentations.” (All.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PNC EQUIPMENT FINANCE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS SANTIAGO MENDOZA MUNIZ, AN INDIVIDUAL

N/A Statement of Damages served (P.I./wrongful death). (JC Form CIV-050; CCP 425.11.) N/A Punitive Damages are supported. Info re Defendant’s financial status. (CCP 425.115)

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

CHUAN JUN LI VS QI ZHAO

N/A Statement of Damages served (P.I./wrongful death). (JC Form CIV-050; CCP 425.11.) N/A Punitive Damages are supported. Info re Defendant’s financial status. (CCP 425.115)

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

N/A Statement of Damages served (P.I./wrongful death). (JC Form CIV-050; CCP 425.11.) N/A Punitive Damages are supported. Info re Defendant’s financial status. (CCP 425.115)

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

N/A Statement of Damages served (P.I./wrongful death). (JC Form CIV-050; CCP 425.11.) N/A Punitive Damages are supported. Info re Defendant’s financial status. (CCP 425.115)

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2020

JOSE AGUILERA VS 5 STAR DELIVERY INC

N/A Statement of Damages served (P.I./wrongful death). (JC Form CIV-050; CCP 425.11.) N/A Punitive Damages are supported. Info re Defendant’s financial status. (CCP 425.115)

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

WEST COVINA CAR STOP, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS ROUND TABLE REMARKETING D.R.S., INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

N/A Statement of Damages served (P.I./wrongful death). (JC Form CIV-050; CCP 425.11.) N/A Punitive Damages are supported. Info re Defendant’s financial status. (CCP 425.115)

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

BARBARA SANCHEZ V. DOES 1 THROUGH 100 INCLUSIVE, ET AL.

Praxair also moves to strike allegations regarding punitive damages in paragraphs 54, 71, and 95 of the complaint, the prayer for punitive damages, and the allegation “other chemical products to be determined during discovery” from the “Doe” amendment identifying Praxair. The allegations regarding punitive damages in paragraphs 54 and 71 are within the strict liability causes of action.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

ANNA RIZHAVSKAYA VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC.

CCP section 3294 which deals with punitive damages defines fraud as: (b)(3) “Fraud” means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury. (Emphasis added.) CACI No. 1901 explains concealment in lay terms: Plaintiff claims that she was harmed because defendant concealed certain information. (Emphasis added.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

REBECCA CASTILLO VS TASTEA HOLDINGS LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

N/A Statement of Damages served (P.I./wrongful death). (JC Form CIV-050; CCP 425.11.) N/A Punitive Damages are supported. Info re Defendant’s financial status. (CCP 425.115)

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

JOSEPH POPP VS VALLEYWIDE ESCROW, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Further, Plaintiff’s allegations do not support a prima facie claim for punitive damages, because the allegations here amount to “mere negligence, [or] even gross negligence, [which] is not sufficient to justify such an award” for punitive damages. (See Kendall Yacht Corp., supra, 50 Cal.App.3d at p. 958.) The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to strike the references to punitive damages with leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CHAN VS. TRANQUILITY, INC.

Superior Court (2013) 57 Cal.4th 364, 376 [no claim for compensatory or punitive damages can be recovered in a UCL action]; Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1134, 1150-51 [“[t]he nonrestitutionary disgorgement remedy sought by plaintiff closely resembles a claim for damages, something that is not permitted under the UCL”]; Cel Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 163, 179 [attorney fees are not authorized in a UCL cause of action].)

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RENEE THURMAN VS E & G PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY ET AL

Defendants Floyd Brown Jr. and E&G Property Management Co. filed separate motions for summary judgment, or, in the alternative, summary adjudication of each cause of action in the complaint and plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages. Because defendants’ motions are made on substantially similar grounds, they are addressed together in this ruling. Where appropriate, defendants are identified separately, i.e., as “E&G” or “Brown.”

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

SHAUNA JOYCE MORGAN, ET AL. VS MAGDALENA GUTIERREZ, ET AL.

N/A Statement of Damages served (P.I./wrongful death). (JC Form CIV-050; CCP 425.11.) N/A Punitive Damages are supported. Info re Defendant’s financial status. (CCP 425.115)

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

SYNN HEE KANG VS JAMES MAN-GIL JUNG

¿¿The¿allegations supporting a request for punitive damages must be alleged¿with specificity; conclusory allegations without sufficient facts are not enough.¿ (Smith v. Superior Court,¿10 Cal.¿App.¿4th 1033, 1041-1042¿(1992).)¿ Plaintiff’s request for exemplary damages is not specific enough to establish a prima facie claim for punitive damages. There are no allegations showing that Defendant acted with oppression, fraud, or malice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

HEINTZELMAN VS ALAM

Defendant moves to strike the prayer for punitive damages, as well as the 3rd cause of action for common law strict liability. Strike Prayer for Punitive Damages - Denied Pursuant to Civil Code §3340, “for wrongful injuries to animals being subjects of property, committed willfully or by gross negligence, in disregard of humanity, exemplary damages may be given.”

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

SOLEIMANI & ASSOCIATES, APLC VS FARIBA DJAHANBANI

Code section 3343 damages request, punitive damages, and the RICO claim. As to Civ. Code section 3343, this section states in part: “One defrauded in the purchase, sale or exchange of property is entitled to recover the difference between the actual value of that with which the defrauded person parted and the actual value of that which he received, together with any additional damage arising from the particular transaction...” Given the factual allegations of the complaint, the Court agrees.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

KEVIN GLEASON VS CLAIRE MATRIX LLC

Analysis Defendant moves to strike the allegations related to intent and the request for punitive damages from the FAC. As the court sustains the demurrer to the fourth cause of action, the motion to strike is MOOT as to that claim. The court, therefore, will address only Defendant’s arguments with respect to the first and second causes of action. “To support punitive damages, the complaint ... must allege ultimate facts of the defendant's oppression, fraud, or malice.” Cyrus v. Haveson, 65 Cal.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

SARAY ROMERO VAZQUEZ ET AL VS HUNTER WAYNE LASSOS ET AL

On September 6, 2018, the court granted defendants Inner Circle and Frontier’s motion to strike punitive damages from the complaint as to Inner Circle and Frontier. Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on September 27, 2018. The FAC asserts a new cause of action for “Violation of Various Vehicle Code Sections” against all Defendants and alleges new facts to support a claim for punitive damages as to all defendants. On January 11, 2019, Cab West was dismissed without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

GITI SHOUSHANI VS SHAVER KORFF CASTRONOVO LLP, ET AL.

Punitive damages thus require more than the mere commission of a tort. (See Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 894-95.) Specific facts must be pled in support of punitive damages. (Hillard v. A.H. Robins Co. (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 374, 391-392.) Analysis Given that the second cause of action is insufficiently pled, as indicated above in connection with the demurrer to the complaint, the Court finds that punitive damages are not warranted.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

HOWARD VS. HONG

HEARING ON MOTION TO STRIKE THE 1st Amended COMPLAINT FILED BY HYOUNG HONG * TENTATIVE RULING: * Defendants moved to strike the prayers for punitive damages and attorney fees from plaintiffs’ first amended complaint. In response, plaintiffs expressly offered to strike those very provisions, proffering a proposed second amended complaint accordingly, and a stipulation to its filing.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

DARSHAN THIND VS MUKHTIAR S KAMBOJ ET AL

After considering the parties’ submitted papers and arguments, the court sustained the demurrer with 20 days leave to amend and granted the motion to strike the request for punitive damages with 20 days leave to amend. Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint on May 30, 2019, and a Notice of Errata to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint on June 26, 2019 (“FAC”).

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

SANTOS CIFUENTES VS TANNIA VANESSA GALLEGOS, ET AL.

While Aspire may be able to prevail against plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages by demonstrating that its denial of plaintiff’s claim was reasonable, this is an issue to be determined on summary judgment or at trial. The motion to strike is DENIED. Ten days to answer.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

MARINA HABA VS VICINO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL.

Vicino claims Haba raises the following “affirmative defenses” – none of which are actually affirmative defenses: (1) Failure to State a Cause of Action; (2) Claim-splitting; (3) Offset; (4) Remote or Speculative Damages; (5) Unjust Enrichment; (6) Legal Fault of Others; (7) Intervening/Superseding Acts of Third Parties; (8) Good Faith Actions; (9) Justification – No Malice, Fraud, or Oppression; (10) Failure to State a Claim for Punitive or Exemplary Damages; and (11) Unintentional [Conduct]/Lack of Knowledge

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.