Muniz v. Davis CA4/2

California Court of Appeal Feb 23, 2015 No. E062691Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a plaintiff's allegation that a defendant consumed intoxicants to the point of legal impairment, knowing they would subsequently operate a vehicle, is sufficient to plead a claim for punitive damages. Consequently, the trial court erred in granting a motion to strike the punitive damages claim.

Issues

Whether a writ of mandate is appropriate to review a pleading order that removes a substantial portion of a plaintiff's case.
Whether allegations of driving while intoxicated are sufficient to plead a claim for punitive damages under Civil Code section 3294.

Disposition. Petition granted.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Where a pleading order removes a substantial portion of the plaintiff’s case, we have discretion to review it by extraordinary writ.”

“This allegation, if proven, meets the standards for the recovery of punitive damages as set out above and in Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890.”

“Accordingly, the trial court erred in granting the motion to strike the claim for punitive damages.”

Filed 2/23/15 Muniz v. Davis CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

JOSE MUNIZ,

Petitioner, E062691

v. (Super.Ct.Nos. PSC1301418 & PSC1401209) THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, OPINION

Respondent;

SANDY S. DAVIS,

Real Party in Interest.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of mandate. John G. Evans, Judge.

Petition granted.

The Law Offices of Larry H. Parker, Inc., and Mitchell P. Beck, for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Higgins Harris Sherman & Rohr, John J. Higgins and Randy Hy, for Real Party in

Interest.

In this matter we have reviewed the petition and the opposition filed by real party

in interest. We have determined that resolution of the matter involves the application of

settled principles of law, and that issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is

therefore appropriate. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171,

178.)

Muniz v. Davis CA4/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

JOSE MUNIZ,

SANDY S. DAVIS,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISPOSITION

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RICHLI J.

AI Brief