Punitive / Exemplary Damages in California

A request for exemplary/punitive damages require the plaintiff to plead express facts of oppression, fraud, or malice on the part of the defendant. (Civil Code section 3294.) Conclusory statements are insufficient to support such a request for damages. (Brousseau v. Jarrett (1997) 73 Cal.App.3d 864, 872.) Further, exemplary/punitive damages are generally not recoverable in wrongful death cases. (West v.

Defendant Kampf has moved to strike the claims and prayers for punitive or exemplary damages contained in Item Nos. 10.f. and 14(a)(2) of the Complaint, EX-1 and EX-2 of the Exemplary Damages Attachment, and the Intentional Tort Cause of Action attachment. The motion contends that the allegations of the complaint do not support the existence of malice, as defined in CC § 3294(c). The facts giving rise to a claim for punitive damages must be specifically alleged.

“There is no cause of action for punitive damages. Punitive or exemplary damages are remedies available to a party who can plead and prove the facts and circumstances set forth in Civil Code section 3294, the cases interpreting this code section, or by other statutory authority. ‘Punitive damages are merely incident to a cause of action, and can never constitute the basis thereof. [Citations omitted.]’ [Citation.]” (Hilliard v. A. H. Robins Co. (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 374, 391, fn. omitted.)

At this time, the Court grants the motion to strike the allegations for punitive and exemplary damages from the complaint. If Plaintiffs intend to allege punitive damages in the complaint, they should file a proper motion pursuant to the appropriate code to make the request. The Court declines to consider Plaintiffs opposition brief as a motion to obtain a court order to include punitive damages in their complaint against a healthcare provider.

Aguiar and Lindsay Aguiar move to strike portions of Plaintiffs’ complaint: • On page 10, lines 7-12, Plaintiffs’ request for “punitive and/or exemplary damages;” • On page 12, lines 15-16, Plaintiffs’ requests for “exemplary damages” and “punitive damages;” • On page 13, lines 14-15, Plaintiffs’ requests for “exemplary damages” and “punitive damages.” The Court construes Plaintiff’s failure to oppose the motion as an abandonment of his claims or an admission the motion has merit. (See Herzberg v.

of Emotional Distress; Prayer for Relief, paragraph 11, “For punitive damages and exemplary damages in the amount of 5 million dollars,” in its entirety, in connection with the Third Cause of Action for Assault; Prayer for Relief, paragraph 15, “For punitive damages and exemplary damages in the amount of 5 million dollars,” in its entirety, in connection with the Fourth Cause of Action for Battery; Prayer for Relief, paragraph 3, “For punitive damages and exemplary damages in the amount of 5 million dollars

Motion Strike Defendant moves to strike Plaintiff’s request for punitive/exemplary damages from the AC based on its contention that Plaintiff has not pleaded facts which entitle her to recover such damages. The right to exemplary or punitive damages requires proof of “oppression, fraud, or malice” on the part of the defendant by “clear and convincing evidence.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).)

Plaintiffs are therefore each entitled to exemplary and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.” 7) Prayer for Relief, page 14, line 9: Seeks exemplary and punitive exemplary damages. 8) Prayer for Relief, page 14, line 15: Seeks exemplary and punitive exemplary damages. C.C.P. §436(a) provides that a court may “[s]trike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.”

Accordingly, the motion to strike punitive damages is GRANTED with leave to amend. Exemplary Damages Defendants also move to strike Plaintiffs cause of action for exemplary damages. Defendants argue there is no separate cause of action for exemplary damages in California. Plaintiffs provide no response to this argument in their opposition.

C.C.P. section 425.14 provides "[n]o claim for punitive or exemplary damages against a religious corporation... shall be included in a complaint... unless the court enters an order allowing an amended pleading that includes a claim for punitive or exemplary damages to be filed." (Civ. Code, § 425.14) The intent of the statute is "to provide to religious institutions a pretrial mechanism to eliminate unsubstantiated punitive damage claims." (Little Co. of Mary Hospital v.

The court thus strikes the prayer for punitive damages and the exemplary damages attachment. Although leave to amend is not granted at this time, this ruling is without prejudice to a future motion to amend the first amended complaint to add a punitive damages claim should discovery reveal facts sufficient to support a claim for punitive damages. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

(i) page 5:14-18 "punitive and exemplary damages," "sufficient to punish," "severity of their conscious disregard," and "and to deter them and other similarly situated from engaging in future conduct"; (ii) page 6:17-21 "punitive and exemplary damages," "sufficient to punish," "severity of their conscious disregard," and "and to deter them and other similarly situated from engaging in future conduct"; and (iii) page 8:25 "for exemplary and punitive damages."

Motion to Strike Punitive Damages, Exemplary Damages and Attorney Fees from Plaintiff Dario Pascual’s 1st Amended Complaint 4. Motion to Strike Punitive Damages, Exemplary Damages and Attorney Fees from Plaintiff Darcy Pascual’s 1st Amended Complaint Case Management Conference

Under "Prayer for Relief", paragraph 2, line 20, on page 11 of the Complaint (First Cause of Action): "For punitive and exemplary damages according to proof;" 7. Under "Prayer for Relief", paragraph 5, line 26, on page 11 of the Complaint (Second Cause of Action): "For punitive and exemplary damages according to proof;" 8. Under "Prayer for Relief", paragraph 8, line 4, on page 12 of the Complaint (Third Cause of Action): "For punitive and exemplary damages according to proof;" 9.

The court orders that the following allegations in the First Amended Complaint are stricken: Page 1: Caption: “Other Damages (specify): EXEMPLARY” Page 3, par. 10.f: “Other (specify): EXEMPLARY DAMAGES” Page 3, par. 14.a(2): “punitive damages” Page 3, par. 15: “EXEMPLARY DAMAGES” Page 5: Exemplary Damages Attachment, in its entirety.

Granted as to punitive damages allegations (Requests 1-18), moot as to request 19. A motion to strike lies where the facts alleged in a pleading do not rise to the level of “malice, fraud or oppression” required to support a punitive damages claim. (Turman vs. Turning Point of Central California, Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63.) Civil Code section 3294 provides that punitive and exemplary damages are allowable where the defendant is guilty of malice, oppression or fraud.

The Court strikes the following: Page 3, paragraph 10(f): “Exemplary damage allegation.” Page 3, paragraph 14(a)(2): “punitive damages.” Page 5: Exemplary damages attachment in its entirety The Plaintiff has 15 days from notice of this order to amend. This ruling is without prejudice to a future motion for leave to amend to add a claim of punitive damages should Plaintiff later discover facts that would justify a claim for punitive damages.

Defendants argue that because “Plaintiffs’ damages allegations are legally improper (as this Court has already ruled), the same must hold true with respect to Plaintiffs’ exemplary damages allegations.” (Id. at p. 4:22-24.) Therefore, Defendants argue, they “are entitled to summary adjudication as a matter of law with respect to Plaintiffs’ claims for exemplary/punitive damages.” (Id. at p. 4:24-25.)

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Strike Claims For Punitive Damages And Exemplary Damages In The First Amended Complaint, Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Thereof [Ccp Sections 435-437]; SET FOR HEARING ON THURSDAY, JULY 13, 2017, LINE 5 DEFENDANT BRUCE WILLIAMS' Motion To Strike Claims For Punitive Damages And Exemplary Damages In The First Amended Complaint Off calendar. Amended complaint filed.

DISCUSSION Defendant moves to strike Plaintiffs prayer for punitive and exemplary damages. Punitive damages may be imposed where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a). A plaintiff seeking punitive damages must include specific factual allegations showing that defendant's conduct was oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious to support a claim for punitive damages.

Armas request that the court strike the following from the complaint: Page 1, caption: “Other Damages (specify): Punitive”; Page 3, paragraph 14.a(2) “punitive damages”; Page 6, Exemplary Damages Attachment No. 1, in its entirety; Page 7, Exemplary Damages Attachment No. 2, in its entirety. In the Exemplary Damages Attachment No. 1, plaintiff alleges: “Just prior to the time of the subject collision, Defendant Arrow Refrigeration, Inc. required employee Defendant Kyle M.

.); and (13) Prayer ¶4 (punitive damages, according to proof, on each cause of action for which such damages are available . . ..). Punitive Damages 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 Central California, Inc.

Tentative ruling for December 8, 2017 on Heather Dunlap's motion to strike the request for punitive/exemplary damages from Plaintiff's first amended complaint The court DENIES Defendant Dunlap's motion to strike the request for punitive/exemplary damages from Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. The California Supreme Court's Taylor decision held "allegations of conscious disregard of the safety of others were sufficient to support punitive damages in the drunk driving situation." (Peterson v.

/Punitive Damages [pled as sixth cause of action]; and (8) Exemplary Damages [pled as seventh cause of action].

Such punitive and exemplary damages serve the public to deter and discourage future despicable conduct and operate as an example and warning to others not to engage in such behavior."

Page 10, line 2, prayer on first cause of action for trespass: For punitive and exemplary damages. DENIED. See above re: ¶ 10. 5. Page 10, line 16, prayer on second cause of action for nuisance: For punitive and exemplary damages. DENIED. See above re: ¶ 10. 6. Page 11, line 4, prayer on fourth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress: For punitive and exemplary damages.

Motion to Strike Punitive Damages. The key authority on the imposition of punitive damages based upon operation of a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol is Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 894. The BAJI Civil Jury Instruction for punitive damages for driving while intoxicated is based upon the Taylor opinion.

Motion to Strike Punitive Damages. The key authority on the imposition of punitive damages based upon operation of a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol is Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 894. The BAJI Civil Jury Instruction for punitive damages for driving while intoxicated is based upon the Taylor opinion.

Dawes also discussed driving without being intoxicated, “ ‘[Allegations] of intoxication, excessive speed, driving with defective equipment or the running of a stop signal, without more, do not state a cause of action for punitive damages.’ ” (Dawes, supra, 111 Cal.App.3d at 90 (quoting Franson, Exemplary Damages in Vehicle Accident Cases (1975) 50 State Bar J., 93, 148, fn. omitted).)

Paragraph 42, p.8, lines 13-15: “Pursuant to Civil Code § 3294, Plaintiff seeks exemplary damages against Defendant for its intentional malicious, oppressive, fraudulent conduct in disregard of Plaintiff’s rights.” 6. Prayer for Relief, p. 10, line 8, “For exemplary damages pursuant to Civil Code §3294.” IT IS SO ORDERED: ______________________ Frederick C. Shaller, Judge

Notice Ofmotion And Omtion To Strike Attorneys Fees And Punitive And Exemplary Damages Adn Certain Other Allegations Set for hearing on Thursday, May 2, 2013, Line 15, DEFENDANTS PETER KHOURY and H324 LLC's Motion To Strike Attorneys Fees And Punitive And Exemplary Damages And Certain Other Allegations. The motion to strike the request for attorney fees is denied. The only basis for fees that Plaintiff cites in opposition to the motion to strike is Civil Procedure Code section 1021.5.

Punitive or Exemplary Damages When a plaintiff claims a breach of an obligation against a defendant, not arising from any contract, punitive damages may be recovered in addition to actual damages when it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice against the plaintiff. (Cal. Civ. Code § 3294.)

With respect to the second portion, this Court GRANTED Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive and exemplary damages as to the IIED claim [SAC, page 20, line 25, item 3].

Plaintiffs seek punitive damages because Defendants failed to inspect and maintain the brakes on the large vehicle, yet continued to operate the vehicle on the roadways in conscious disregard of the safety of others. Defendants seek to strike the entire Exemplary Damages Attachment and the prayer for punitive damages at ¶ 14(a)(2).

In addition to asserting the foregoing claims, Plaintiff requests punitive damages. On January 23, 2020, Defendants filed the instant demurrer to the cause of action for exemplary damages or, in the alternative, to strike this claim and Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages for failure to plead facts supporting such an award. (Code Civ. Proc, §§ 430.10, subd. (e), 435 and 436.) Plaintiff opposes the motion.1 II.

Complaint, Page Six, Third Cause of Action General Negligence, any and all reference to punitive damages; 4. Complaint, Page Seven, Exemplary Damages Attachment, in its entirety; and 5. Any and all other reference to punitive or exemplary damages.

Defendants Kevin Fitzpatrick and Lisa Fitzpatrick's Motion to Strike References to Treble, Exemplary and Punitive Damages and a Right to Attorneys Fees from the FAC is granted in part and denied in part. The motion to strike the references to treble, exemplary and punitive damages is granted without prejudice. The allegations in the FAC do not support a finding of malice, fraud or oppression. Plaintiff's request for leave to amend is denied at this time.

Thus, the Court strikes the claims for punitive damages and exemplary damages in TAC as requested. Moving Defendants to give notice.

Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages. Defendant moves to strike the prayer for punitive damages and the exemplary damages attachment. To state a claim for punitive damages under Civil Code section 3294, a plaintiff must allege specific facts showing that the defendant has been guilty of malice, oppression or fraud. (Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal. App. 4th 1033, 1042.)

As a result, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive or exemplary damages from all defendants in a sum according to proof at trial."; 10. Prayer, paragraph 4, line 3 (on page 38) of the SAC, which states: "For punitive and exemplary damages according to proof." Plaintiff is ordered to file an amended complaint within 15 days.

The Motion to Strike is GRANTED without leave to amend as to moving defendant TURLOCK IRRIGATION DISTRICT, as Plaintiffs are barred from recovering punitive damages against said defendant as a matter of law.The Court finds that the allegations contained in the First Amended Complaint and the Exemplary Damages Attachment are sufficient at this stage to support a request for punitive damages against the individual defendants. Therefore, the Motion to Strike of Defendants GOMES and McCOY is DENIED.

The court strikes the prayer for exemplary damages alleged at page 3, ¶ 10.f. of the Complaint and the Exemplary Damages Attachment. To support the claim for punitive damages, Plaintiffs must allege fact and circumstances showing malice, fraud or oppression as those terms are defined by statute. Grieves v. Superior Court, 157 Cal. App. 3d 159, 166 (1984).

Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.14 provides: No claim for punitive or exemplary damages against a religious corporation or religious corporation sole shall be included in a complaint or other pleading unless the court enters an order allowing an amended pleading that includes a claim for punitive or exemplary damages to be filed.

Defendant Shottenkirk moves to strike any and all references to punitive or exemplary damages in the First Amended Complaint. This is the second such motion. The Court previously granted a motion to strike with leave to amend as to the Complaint. The defects identified in the Complaint have not been addressed in the First Amended Complaint. The First Amended Complaint still fails to allege facts to support punitive damages as against Defendant under Civil Code section 3294, subdivision (b).

Defendant Casa Romantica Cultural Center and Gardens seeks an order from the Court striking the portions of the Complaint which seek punitive damages (i.e. ¶14 of the Prayer and the Exemplary Damages Attachment, in its entirety).

As the above discussed cases make clear, the immunity afforded to public entities under section 818 is narrow, extending only to damages whose purpose is simply and solely punitive or exemplary. LACMTA, 123 Cal.App.4th at 275. The parties agree again that there is no authority directly on point. The court is persuaded by the Public Authority's arguments that the simple and sole purpose of Labor Code § 1194.2 is punitive or exemplary.

A motion to strike is also properly directed to unauthorized claims for damages, meaning damages which are not allowable as a matter of law. See, e.g. Commodore Home Systems, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 211, 214 (motion to strike lies against request for punitive damages when the claim sued upon would not support an award of punitive damages as a matter of law).

Prayer for relief under First Cause of Action at paragraph 3, relating to punitive and exemplary damages; 5. Prayer for relief under Second Cause of Action at paragraph 2, relating to punitive and exemplary damages; 6. Prayer for relief under Third Cause of Action at paragraph 2, relating to punitive and exemplary damages; 7. Prayer for relief under Seventh Cause of Action at paragraph 2, relating to punitive and exemplary damages.

A motion to strike is authorized where there is a request for punitive damages, but the underlying allegations do not support such a request. (Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 164.) Punitive damages are recoverable “where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice[.]” (Civ. Code § 3294(a).) Additionally, the Civil Code provides no claim for exemplary damages shall state an amount. (Civ. Code § 3295(e).)

DISCUSSION Defendants Shawanda Jackson requests that the court strike Item 14(a)(2) of the prayer for punitive damages and the entire Exemplary Damages Attachment of the complaint. In the Exemplary Damages Attachment, plaintiff alleges the following facts. Defendants were intoxicated at the time of the accident and began to ingest large quantities of alcohol hours prior to the actual accident.

Defendant’s motion to strike the prayer for punitive damages and the exemplary damages attachment is granted, without prejudice to renew if, after discovery, plaintiff is able to plead facts to support a finding of malice as defined in Civil Code §3294.

Therefore, the court strikes: (1) paragraph 10, page 3: “Exemplary Damages Attachment”; (2) paragraph 14, page 3: “punitive damages”; (3) paragraph 15 , page 3: “Paragraph EX-2 of Exemplary Cause of Action”; and (4) Page 6 (“Exemplary Damages Attachment”) in its entirety. The court denies the request to strike paragraph MV-1, page 4: “while intoxicated” because that allegation is relevant to Plaintiff’s first cause of action.

Punitive or exemplary damages are remedies available to a party who can plead and prove the facts and circumstances [set forth in Civil Code section 3294] .... ‘Punitive damages are merely incident to a cause of action, and can never constitute the basis thereof.’” (Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 163–64.) Therefore, a demurrer to Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive/exemplary damages is improper and is OVERRULED. d.

Plaintiffs allegations that Nareg, the maintenance supervisor at the PREMISES took certain actions is insufficient to impose punitive damages on Defendant as are the conclusory allegations of authorization and ratification. (Compl. ¶¶13-15, 33-34). Based on the foregoing, Defendants request to strike the prayer for exemplary/punitive damages is granted.

[Prayer for Relief]: and punitive damages · Page 5, Exemplary Damages Attachment, in its entirety. To state a claim for punitive damages under Civil Code section 3294, a plaintiff must allege specific facts showing that the defendant has been guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud. ( Smith v. Superio r Court (1992) 10 Cal. App. 4th 1033, 1042.) The basis for punitive damages must be pled with specificity; conclusory allegations devoid of any factual assertions are insufficient. ( Id .)

Quon seeks punitive damages as well as general and special damages.

Defendants' conduct justifies an award of exemplary and punitive damages]; see also Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166 [The mere allegation an intentional tort was committed is not sufficient to warrant an award of punitive damages. Not only must there be circumstances of oppression, fraud, or malice, but facts must be alleged in the pleading to support such a claim].)

Such allegations rise above mere negligence and support a claim for punitive damages. Moreover, it can be inferred from such allegations that Defendants’ actions were deliberate and intended to cause injury to Plaintiffs. Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion to strike punitive and exemplary damages is DENIED. Conclusion Defendants’ motion to strike punitive and exemplary damages is DENIED. Moving party to give notice.

Moreover, specific facts must be pleaded in support of punitive damages. See Hilliard v. A. H. Robins Co. (1983) 148 Cal. App. 3d 374, 391-92. Mere conclusory allegations are insufficient. Id. DISCUSSION As set forth in the notice of motion, Defendant seeks an order striking the following portions of Plaintiffs’ Complaint: (1) paragraph 10(f) (request for punitive damages); (2) paragraph 14.a(2) (prayer for punitive damages); and (3) the “Exemplary Damages Attachment,” in its entirety.

Defendant’s Motion to Strike the Exemplary Damages Attachment and any Request for Exemplary Damages from Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed on 4/27/18, is GRANTED, without leave to amend. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 436. To support a claim for punitive damages, Plaintiff must allege facts and circumstances showing malice, fraud or oppression. Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal. App. 3d 159, 166.

Punitive Damages: A motion to strike lies where the facts alleged in a pleading do not rise to the level of “malice, fraud or oppression” required to support a punitive damages claim. (Turman vs. Turning Point of Central California, Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63.) C.C. §3294 provides that exemplary damages are allowable where the defendant is guilty of malice, oppression or fraud.

HEARING ON MOTION TO/FOR MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE/EXEMPLARY DAMAGES FILED BY JAMES J TOTAH, GIOVANNI W CRUZ * TENTATIVE RULING: * The ruling in Line 14, sustaining defendants’ demurrer to the entire FAC, effectively moots the motion to strike the punitive damages claim, at least for now. There are no surviving causes of action on which punitive damages could be based.

No claim for punitive or exemplary damages against a religious corporation or religious corporation sole shall be included in a complaint or other pleading unless the court enters an order allowing an amended pleading that includes a claim for punitive or exemplary damages to be filed.

Punitive damages in California is exclusively a remedy afforded to a cause of action where the recoverable damages from that underlying cause of action include punitive damages such as fraud and intentional torts. The court in Hilliard v. A.H. Robins Co. (1983) 48 Cal.App.3d 374, 391 unambiguously ruled that a party cannot recover punitive damages unless the cause of action pled permits the plaintiff or cross-complainant to recover punitive damages: “There is no cause of action for punitive damages.

Plaintiff Ted Franse’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Prayer for Punitive Damages in the First Amended Complaint is granted with 10 days leave to amend. Defendant Eurolux, LLC seeks to strike the following allegations from plaintiff’s first amended complaint: 1. Page 3, line 14(a)(2): “punitive damages”; and 2.

· Page 12, lines 10 to 11: By reason of such conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to recover exemplary and punitive damages to the maximum extent allowed by law. · Page 13, lines 22 to 23: By reason of such conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to recover exemplary and punitive damages to the maximum extent allowed by law. · Page 16, lines 23 to 24: Punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish defendants and deter others from engaging in similar conduct.

Plaintiff also seeks punitive damages and includes an attachment for exemplary damages against Does 1 to 50. On September 11, 2023, Defendants filed this motion to strike Paragraph 14, subsection (a)(2) of the Complaint for punitive damages and Plaintiffs exemplary damages attachment on the grounds that the allegations do not set forth facts constituting oppression, fraud, or malice within the meaning of Civil Code section 3294.

Exemplary and punitive damages are not recoverable in a cause of action for breach of an obligation arising from contract. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).) Contrary to plaintiffs’ argument in opposition, the second cause of action does not allege a tort claim for wrongful eviction. The Court notes that the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth causes of action assert tort claims and defendants do not challenge the prayers for punitive damages as to these causes of action.

The complaint includes a prayer for punitive damages. Defendant Uber, at this time, moves to strike the prayer for punitive damages in the complaint. On 12/29/20, Plaintiff filed a declaration from his counsel providing that Plaintiff’s inadvertently failed to include an Exemplary Damages Attachment with the original complaint, which counsel states is necessary to fully evaluate the issues presented in Uber’s motion to strike.

As to the request for punitive and exemplary damages, paragraph 26 was contained in the Gross Negligence cause of action, which has been struck by the Court. The remainder of the allegations in the Complaint fail to support prayer for punitive damages. The only punitive damage reference are conclusory statements without pleading the specificity required to support punitive damages. Plaintiffs failed to specifically allege any malice, oppression, or fraud which might support punitive damages. Civ.

Defendants' conduct justifies an award of exemplary and punitive damages]; see also Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166 [The mere allegation an intentional tort was committed is not sufficient to warrant an award of punitive damages. Not only must there be circumstances of oppression, fraud, or malice, but facts must be alleged in the pleading to support such a claim].) In Taylor v.

Plaintiff should therefore be awarded punitive and exemplary damages under Civil Code §3294 sufficient to punish Defendants for engaging in this conduct and to deter similar conduct in the future 3. From Item #3, page 9: For punitive and exemplary damages 4. From Item #2, page 10: For punitive and exemplary damage Defendant contends that the claim for punitive damages should be struck from the FAC.

Defendants' conduct justifies an award of exemplary and punitive damages”]; see also Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166 [“The mere allegation an intentional tort was committed is not sufficient to warrant an award of punitive damages. Not only must there be circumstances of oppression, fraud, or malice, but facts must be alleged in the pleading to support such a claim”].)

Here, Plaintiff alleges in the exemplary damages attachment that defendant Junggu Kwon “intentionally and violently pushed plaintiff downstairs” when Plaintiff was not looking at the defendant. (Compl., at pg. 6.) Defendant argues that the allegations of “intentional “ and “violent” are insufficient to support a claim of punitive damages. However, in looking at the context of the facts as alleged, the complaint supports a claim for punitive damages. (Perkins, supra, at 6.)

Moreover, specific facts must be pleaded in support of punitive damages. See Hilliard v. A. H. Robins Co. (1983) 148 Cal. App. 3d 374, 391-92. Mere conclusory allegations are insufficient. Id. DISCUSSION Defendant requests that the court strike the following in the FAC: par. 21 (at 5:21) for exemplary damages, par. 22 (6:14-15 “and calls for an award of exemplary and punitive damages”), and prayer at par. 3 for exemplary and punitive damages.

App. 4th 1049, the court held that statutory provisions entitling a plaintiff to recover damages for pain and suffering, attorneys’ fees and costs for elder abuse are not punitive or exemplary damages and do not fall within the governmental immunity of Gov. Code §818. 108 Cal. App. 4th at 1061-62. In DuBois v. Workers’ Comp.

Additionally, plaintiffs’ Exemplary Damages Attachment contains no factual allegations that would establish defendant was guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. Defendant’s motion to strike is therefore GRANTED. The court orders that (1) page 3, paragraph 14.a.(2) (“punitive damages”), and (2) the Exemplary Damages Attachment are stricken. Plaintiffs have 20 days leave to amend. Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Here, the motion seeks to strike punitive damages allegations from the Complaint. Such a motion lies where the facts alleged in a pleading do not rise to the level of “malice, fraud or oppression” required to support a punitive-damages claim. (Turman vs. Turning Point of Central California, Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63.) Civil Code section 3294 provides that exemplary damages are allowable where the defendant is guilty of malice, oppression or fraud.

Here, the motion seeks to strike punitive damages allegations from the Complaint. Such a motion lies where the facts alleged in a pleading do not rise to the level of “malice, fraud or oppression” required to support a punitive-damages claim. (Turman vs. Turning Point of Central California, Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63.) Civil Code section 3294 provides that exemplary damages are allowable where the defendant is guilty of malice, oppression or fraud.

Here, the motion seeks to strike punitive damages allegations from the Complaint. Such a motion lies where the facts alleged in a pleading do not rise to the level of “malice, fraud or oppression” required to support a punitive-damages claim. (Turman vs. Turning Point of Central California, Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63.) Civil Code section 3294 provides that exemplary damages are allowable where the defendant is guilty of malice, oppression or fraud.

Here, the motion seeks to strike punitive damages allegations from the Complaint. Such a motion lies where the facts alleged in a pleading do not rise to the level of “malice, fraud or oppression” required to support a punitive-damages claim. (Turman vs. Turning Point of Central California, Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63.) Civil Code section 3294 provides that exemplary damages are allowable where the defendant is guilty of malice, oppression or fraud.

Defendants Karen Blumen and Scott Blumen bring this Motion to Strike, seeking to strike the prayer for punitive damages at ¶14a.(2), and the Exemplary Damages Attachment. Based on the Exemplary Damages Attachment, the punitive damages are alleged against Defendant Karen Blumen only. [¶Ex-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) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.

Punitive damages are available for claims of negligence. While defendant is correct in that punitive damages are typically awarded for intentional torts, there is nothing to suggest that punitive damages are precluded in a claim for negligence.

ANY REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT SHALL BE HEARD AT 9AM The Motion to Strike is GRANTED as to the following: (1) “punitive, and exemplary damages” in paragraph 76 of the SAC; (2) “exemplary damages” in paragraph 96 of the SAC; (3) paragraph 9 of the Prayer for Relief; and (4) “and disgorgement of all profits from the unlawful business practices of Defendant” in paragraph 3 of the Prayer for Relief. The Motion to Strike is otherwise DENIED.

Motion to Strike Defendants request that the court strike the following: 3rd cause of action entitled “negligent entrustment; exemplary damages” identified at page 3, par. 10(f); prayer for “punitive damages” at page 3; entire 3rd cause of action; entire “Exemplary Damages Attachment.” Defendants argue that plaintiff fails to adequately plead a basis for punitive/exemplary damages. “There must be an intent to vex or annoy or injure.

Punitive damages are “typically awarded for intentional torts” while “cases involving unintentional torts are far fewer.” (Lackner v. North (2006) 135 Cal. App. 4th 1188, 1212.) A much more specific showing would have to be made to allow the claim for punitive damages to proceed. In sum, the motion to strike the prayer for punitive damages and the exemplary damages attachment is granted. Leave to amend is granted. Plaintiff has 20 days to amend. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

The following words are stricken from paragraph 100: "and exemplary damages" and "penalties, punitive or exemplary damages, pursuant to California Civil Code sec. 3294." The complaint does not plead facts establishing that Defendant acted with "oppression, fraud, or malice" as required by Civ. Code sec. 3294(a). (See Grieves v. Sup.

Plaintiff alleges no new facts in her FAC to support her claim for punitive damages. Accordingly, the following portions of the FAC are ordered stricken: (1) paragraph 11 on page 3, which states: “other damage (specify): Exemplary Damages in the amount to be proven at time of trial;”; (2) Paragraph 14a(2) on page 3, which states: “punitive damages;” and (3) the “Exemplary Damages Attachment” in its entirety on page 8.

Neither do those facts, as pled, rise to the level of oppression, fraud or malice which would support a claim for punitive damages.

.: "The acts of defendants as alleged herein were reckless, willful, wanton, malicious, and oppressive and justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount according to proof at trial." ¶ 76/21-23.: "The acts of the defendants, and each of them, as alleged herein were reckless, willful, wanton, malicious, and oppressive and justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages." From the Prayer for Relief: "3.

After Defendants filed a motion to strike Plaintiffs request for punitive damages, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (FAC) on June 15, 2023, alleging the same causes of action. On August 2, 2023, Defendant filed the instant motion to strike Plaintiffs request for punitive damages. The motion is unopposed.

Here, Defendant moves to strike Plaintiffs claim for punitive/exemplary damages from the complaint on two grounds: (1) Plaintiffs prayer for punitive damages does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 425.13; and (2) the complaint fails to allege facts showing fraud, oppression, or malice on the part of Defendant . Plaintiff does not present argument in opposition to the motion to strike punitive damages.

Plaintiff also included a claim for exemplary and punitive damages. On September 16, 2020 Defendants filed the instant Motion to Strike Paragraphs 10(f) for “exemplary damages attachment” and 14(a)(2) for “punitive damages” and the Exemplary Damages Attachment in its entirety from the FAC. Plaintiff opposed on October 16, 2020. The Motion to strike was granted with leave to amend.

Plaintiffs cite no case law supporting the proposition that such statutory violations, standing alone, support a claim for punitive damages.

Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to exemplary and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial." 8. Paragraph 3 on the First Cause of Action in the Prayer for Relief, page 15, line 11: "For exemplary and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial." 9. Paragraph 2 on the Second Cause of Action in the Prayer for Relief, page 15, line 14: "For exemplary and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial." 10.

Punitive Damages Defendants’ motion to strike the following references to punitive damages is denied. 1. Page 26, ¶105, Lines 16-21; 2. Page 27, ¶107, Lines 10-11; 3. Page 33, Prayer for Relief on Third Cause of Action, Line 23, “For punitive and exemplary damages” Punitive or exemplary damages are remedies available to a party who can plead and prove the facts and circumstances set forth in Civil Code section 3294. Fraud is itself an adequate basis for awarding punitive damages.” Miller v.

The request for punitive damages and Page 6, EXEMPLARY DAMAGES ATTACHMENT still stand because Plaintiff alleged facts sufficient to show willful, malicious conduct. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

A corporate defendant may not be liable for punitive damages based on the acts of its employees unless the plaintiff alleges and proves that an officer, director or managing agent of the corporation: (1) was personally guilty of oppression, fraud or malice; or (2) had advance knowledge of, authorized, or ratified the wrongful conduct for which the damages are awarded. Civ. Code § 3294(b). Nuisance may be either a negligent tort or an intentional tort. If intentional, exemplary damages may be recoverable.