Muniz v. Davis CA4/2 ( 2015 )

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
1
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.)
DISCUSSION
First, we reject defendant’s argument that writ review is unnecessary and that
plaintiff should be relegated to his remedy on appeal. Where a pleading order removes a
substantial portion of the plaintiff’s case, we have discretion to review it by extraordinary
writ. (Campbell v. Superior Court (1996) 44 Cal. App. 4th 1308, 1314-1315.)
Punitive damages may be recovered in a personal injury action if the plaintiff
pleads and proves that the defendant acted with the state of mind described as “conscious
disregard” of the potential dangers to others. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(2); Pfeifer v.
John Crane, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal. App. 4th 1270, 1299.) Although defendant may be
correct in arguing that an unadorned allegation that a defendant so acted would be
insufficient, here plaintiff alleges that defendant consumed intoxicants to the point of
legal impairment, knowing that she would subsequently operate a vehicle on public
highways. 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. The
pleading of ultimate fact is sufficient; additional evidentiary allegations such as those
2
noted by defendant in Dawes v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal. App. 3d 82 are not
essential.
Accordingly, the trial court erred in granting the motion to strike the claim for
punitive damages.
DISPOSITION
Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue, directing the Superior Court of Riverside
County to vacate its order granting the motion to strike, and to enter a new order denying
said motion.
Petitioner is directed to prepare and have the peremptory writ of mandate issued,
copies served, and the original filed with the clerk of this court, together with proof of
service on all parties.
Petitioner to recover his costs.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J.
We concur:
McKINSTER
J.
RICHLI
J.
3