What are punitive / exemplary damages?

Useful Rulings on Punitive / Exemplary Damages

Recent Rulings on Punitive / Exemplary Damages

1-25 of 10000 results

CATHAY BANK VS ACE HARDWARE CORPORATION

Again, at this point, this does not show a willful act by Defendant JMI to entitle Plaintiffs to punitive damages discovery against it. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2020

CHANGLIANG DAI VS THOMAS CHEN, ET AL.

N/A Statement of Damages served (P.I./wrongful death). (JC Form CIV-050; CCP 425.11.) N/A Punitive Damages are supported. Info re Defendant’s financial status. (CCP 425.115)

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ANGELA WATSON VS GILBERT A. CABOT

Punitive Damages Defendants move to strike punitive damages on the grounds that Plaintiff has not plead oppressive or malicious conduct into the TAC, and that Plaintiff’s claim for negligent misrepresentation is defective as elaborated in the concurrent demurrer. In light of the demurrer, the only remaining cause of action is the 1st cause of action for negligent misrepresentation. “Punitive damages are recoverable in those fraud actions involving intentional, but not negligent misrepresentations.” (All.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JINGXUAN ZHANG VS HUMMINGBIRD NEST ENTERTAINMENT CORP

N/A Statement of Damages served (P.I./wrongful death). (JC Form CIV-050; CCP 425.11.) N/A Punitive Damages are supported. Info re Defendant’s financial status. (CCP 425.115)

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

PNC EQUIPMENT FINANCE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS SANTIAGO MENDOZA MUNIZ, AN INDIVIDUAL

N/A Statement of Damages served (P.I./wrongful death). (JC Form CIV-050; CCP 425.11.) N/A Punitive Damages are supported. Info re Defendant’s financial status. (CCP 425.115)

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

CHUAN JUN LI VS QI ZHAO

N/A Statement of Damages served (P.I./wrongful death). (JC Form CIV-050; CCP 425.11.) N/A Punitive Damages are supported. Info re Defendant’s financial status. (CCP 425.115)

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

ARMEN G KOJIKIAN ET AL VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC

Finally, counsel contends that although the FAC asserts a claim claims for disgorgement of profits and exemplary damages, due to Defendant’s defenses, the likelihood of prevailing on this claim was low, and therefore assigned it no value. (Motion ISO Preliminary Approval, 6:8-21.) 2. Risk, expense, complexity and likely duration of further litigation. Given the nature of the class claims, the case is likely to be expensive and lengthy to try.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

N/A Statement of Damages served (P.I./wrongful death). (JC Form CIV-050; CCP 425.11.) N/A Punitive Damages are supported. Info re Defendant’s financial status. (CCP 425.115)

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

N/A Statement of Damages served (P.I./wrongful death). (JC Form CIV-050; CCP 425.11.) N/A Punitive Damages are supported. Info re Defendant’s financial status. (CCP 425.115)

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2020

GLENDA JOHNSON VS JEREMY NEWMAN, ET AL.

Newman does not rise to the level of malicious, fraudulent, or oppressive conduct such that Plaintiff can maintain her claim for punitive damages. In opposition, Plaintiff argues that she has alleged fact sufficient to state a prima facie claim for punitive damages. For the first time in reply, Defendant argues that pursuant to Government Code section 818, Defendant, as a government employee, is statutorily immune from any claims of punitive and exemplary damages.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

GENGUS SANBORN VS DELTA AIR LINES, INC.

Where the defendant’s wrongdoing has been intentional and deliberate and has the character of outrage frequently associated with crime, all but a few courts have permitted the jury to award in the tort action “punitive” or “exemplarydamages. Something more than the mere commission of a tort is always required for punitive damages.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

BENJAMIN F. POCO, ET AL. VS WORLD SAVINGS BANK, FSB, ET AL.

See above Statement of Damages served (P.I./wrongful death). (JC Form CIV-050; CCP 425.11.) See above Punitive Damages are supported. Info re Defendant’s financial status. (CCP 425.115)

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

MICHAEL JAMES POOL VS CHOL ENT. INC, ET AL.

However, the Court grants the motion to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages against Defendants. In ruling on a motion to strike punitive damages, “judges 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.) To state a prima facie claim for punitive damages, a plaintiff must allege the elements set forth in the punitive damages statute, Civil Code section 3294.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

LUIS VASQUEZ, ET AL. VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC

“Mere negligence, even gross negligence, is not sufficient to justify such an award” for punitive damages. (Kendall Yacht Corp. v. United California Bank (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 949, 958.) Plaintiffs’ allegations of fraud, if believed by a jury, are sufficient for the imposition of punitive damages. Defendant’s motion to strike punitive damages is DENIED. 2.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

JOSE FLORES ET AL VS MICHELLE MURPHY ET AL

If the latter, then exemplary damages are recoverable (Citation omitted).” (Id. at 920.) As such, Plaintiffs may assert causes of action for nuisance based on negligence or intentional tort (with the possibility of punitive damages). The demurrer to the eleventh cause of action is OVERRULED. 9. Sixteenth Cause of Action (Non-existent).

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

SARAY ROMERO VAZQUEZ ET AL VS HUNTER WAYNE LASSOS ET AL

On September 6, 2018, the court granted defendants Inner Circle and Frontier’s motion to strike punitive damages from the complaint as to Inner Circle and Frontier. Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on September 27, 2018. The FAC asserts a new cause of action for “Violation of Various Vehicle Code Sections” against all Defendants and alleges new facts to support a claim for punitive damages as to all defendants.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

MARIANNE STEINBRONER , ET AL. VS ROYALWOOD CARE CENTER, LLC, ET AL.

The court severs at para. 12: “However, any award (including compensatory and punitive damages, fees and other costs), regardless of the nature of the dispute, shall not exceed the lesser of: (a) 3 times the amount of the prevailing party’s compensatory damages or (b) any applicable caps on damages under the state law where the Center exists.” The case is stayed as to the 2nd cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

LESLIE GOULD, ET AL VS. JOEL D. KETTLER, ET AL

On December 20, 2013, Leslie filed his Petition for Redress for Breach of Trust in his capacity as a beneficiary of the trust, requesting that Kettler be removed as Trustee and seeking an order for monetary surcharge and punitive or exemplary damages. (Gould Exhibit 536.) According to Leslie, his petition was never calendared for any hearing on the merits. (Goulds’ Opposition, at p. 6.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

IN THE MATTER OF: ERIC GILCHRIST, ET AL.

The Court STRIKES paragraph seven from Plaintiff’s prayer for damages on page twelve of the complaint where Plaintiff asks for punitive damages. Plaintiff may file a first amended complaint within 20 days of this ruling. Defendants Tetra Tech, Inc. and Munoz are ordered to give notice of this ruling. The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

KEENAN VS HORTON HEARING RE: MOTION TO/FOR STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE COMPLAINT / MPAS / DECLARATION BY DAVID L HORTON, DAVID L HORTON ASSOCIATION

Defendants’ motion is based upon the grounds that the Complaint does not state a claim for punitive damages. Plaintiff has not pleaded malice. Plaintiff may seek punitive damages for “oppression, fraud or malice” by the defendant. (CC § 3294(a).) “Malice” means conduct intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct that is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard for the rights or safety of others. CC § 3294(c)(1).

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

KALJIAN SANTA BARBARA LLC V. DR. R. GREG LOWRY, DDS, INC.

Likewise, standing alone, a finding of liability for punitive damages is insufficient.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

GUDINO V. HERNANDEZ, ET AL.

Plaintiff asks for out of pocket damages of at least $141,944.26 (the invoiced amount at issue in Case No. 18CV02115), as well as commercially reasonable damages, with an express request for punitive damages. California does not authorize attachment for tort claims. (Oiye v. Fox (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1057, fn. 7; Waffer Internat. Corp. v. Khorsandi (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1261, 1277; Baker v. Superior Court (1983) 150 Cal.App.3d 140, 146-147.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

ZAVALA VS. SOUTHERN CA EDISON

To deny Defendants Southern California Edison and Edison International's Motion to Strike Punitive Damages Allegations of Plaintiffs' Complaint. The allegations of the Complaint, namely paragraphs 39-47, 55, 61, and 64, appear to be sufficient to support an award of punitive damages. Civil Code § 3294. Defendants have not persuasively argued that Plaintiffs' allegations are too general or conclusory to show malice, oppression, or fraud under Civil Code section 3294.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

HANNELORE CISNEROS VS TRACT 349, MUTUAL WATER COMPANY

The court finds that the FAC adequately alleges facts supporting malicious, despicable, and fraudulent conduct giving rise to punitive damages. However, the FAC does not allege corporate ratification. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED with 10 days leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

IVAN K STEVENSON VS WAI CHING SHILON ET AL

Claim for punitive damages Civil Code §3294 authorizes the recovery of punitive damages in non-contract cases where “the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice . . . .” The Court in Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 894-95, found that “[s]omething more than the mere commission of a tort is always required for punitive damages.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.