Maria Rodriguez-Chavira v. MaitreYee Sarkar

Maria Rodriguez-Chavira v. MaitreYee Sarkar, 25CVP-0369

Hearing: Motion to Strike Punitive Damages

Date: June 30, 2026

Maria del Socorro Rodriguez-Chavira (Plaintiff) filed this action against Maitreyee Sarkar (Defendant) on September 25, 2025. The action for negligence arises out of a motor vehicle accident occurring on July 20, 2024 on SR-46 near the intersection with SR-41 and McMillan Canyon Road.

Defendant moves to strike Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages, page 3, paragraph 14(a)(2) of the complaint, on the grounds that it is insufficiently alleged. Defendant filed an answer concurrently with the motion.

Counsel for Defendant declares that he sent meet and confer correspondence to Plaintiff but did not receive a response. He declares the letters were sent to the address identified in Plaintiff’s complaint and he has no other address or phone number at which to reach her. (Declaration of Michael D. Rohfeld, ¶¶ 3, 4.)

Plaintiff opposes the motion.

I.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 436 permits a court to strike: (1) “any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading”; and (2) “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.” As with demurrers, the grounds for a motion to strike must “appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437.)

In ruling on a motion to strike, courts do not review allegations in isolation but rather read allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth. (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255; see also Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2026) ¶ 7:197.5.)

The adequacy of punitive damages allegations may be tested by motion to strike. (Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 164; Dawes v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 82, 86.)

II.

Discussion

Punitive damages are governed by Civil Code section 3294, which requires “clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice ....” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).) “That standard requires a finding of high probability .... ‘ “so clear as to leave no substantial doubt sufficiently strong to command the unhesitating assent of every reasonable mind. [Citations.]” (Lackner v. North (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1188, 1211.)

Malice is defined as “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.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(1).) “Oppression” is defined as “despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(2).)

“‘Despicable conduct’ is conduct that is so vile, base, or contemptible that it would be looked down on and despised by reasonable people.” (CACI Nos. 3940, 3941.) “Conscious disregard of rights is conduct by a defendant who is aware of the probable dangerous consequences of such conduct to plaintiff’s interests and willfully and deliberately fails to avoid those consequences.” (Smith v. Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 503, 516 [citation omitted].)

In order to survive a motion to strike an allegation of punitive damages, the ultimate facts showing an entitlement to such relief must be pled by a plaintiff. (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.) Conclusory allegations are insufficient to support a prayer for punitive damages. (Brousseau v. Jarrett (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 864, 872; Anschutz Entertainment Group, Inc. v. Snepp (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 598, 643 [general allegations insufficient to meet pleading requirement.].)

Moreover, allegations amounting merely to negligence are insufficient to allege a claim for punitive damages. Nor is the mere allegation that an intentional tort was committed sufficient. (See Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166-167.)

Here, Plaintiff checks the box requesting punitive damages in her prayer. (Cmpl., p. 3, ¶ 14(a)(2).)

While the factual allegations and attachments to the complaint show a traumatic accident for Plaintiff, they allege Defendant was negligent and operated their car without sufficient care. However, the allegations are insufficient to allege oppression, fraud, or malice and fail state a claim for punitive damages. (Cmpl., pp. 4-5. 1)

1 Plaintiff’s complaint includes a form complaint as the first three pages, and then a typed complaint with the factual allegations. Those typed allegations re-start numbering at page 1, but the Court refers to them as pages 4 and 5 out of the entire complaint package.

ORDER (PROPOSED)

Defendant’s motion to strike is granted with leave to amend only to add allegations supporting a claim for punitive damages. If Plaintiff wishes to amend, she shall file and serve her amended complaint by July 21, 2026.

Should an amended complaint not be filed by July 21, 2026, the action will proceed based upon the current complaint, with the omission of the stricken claim for punitive damages. An answer to the current complaint is already on file.

Defendant shall serve notice of this order by end of day on July 2, 2026.

3