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. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 147, 160.) At the pleading stage, all that is required is that "the gravamen of the proposed complaint. . . is that defendant became intoxicated and thereafter drove a car while in that condition, despite his knowledge of the safety hazard he created thereby." (Id. at 163.) This standard has been met in the First Amended Complaint
Hearing Date
December 08, 2017
Category
Civil - Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
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. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 147, 160.) At the pleading stage, all that is required is that "the gravamen of the proposed complaint. . . is that defendant became intoxicated and thereafter drove a car while in that condition, despite his knowledge of the safety hazard he created thereby." (Id. at 163.) This standard has been met in the First Amended Complaint