8 Cited authorities

Taylor v. Superior Court
24 Cal.3d 890 (Cal. 1979) Cited 242 times
In Taylor, the California Supreme Court examined whether the act of driving while intoxicated constituted malice for the purposes of a CC § 3294 punitive damages award.
American Airlines v. Sheppard
96 Cal.App.4th 1017 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) Cited 108 times
Holding that although defendants had been "disingenuous" and acted with "willful and conscious disregard" of the plaintiff's interests, their conduct did not "reach the level of despicability found in cases in which punitive damages were found to be proper"
Scott v. Phoenix Schools, Inc.
175 Cal.App.4th 702 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 70 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that punitive damages were not appropriate where there was an absence of a false reason to hide an illegal termination and an absence of evidence showing a pattern of unwarranted criticism
G.D. Searle Co. v. Superior Court
49 Cal.App.3d 22 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975) Cited 132 times
In G.D. Searle Co. v. Superior Court (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 22 [ 122 Cal.Rptr. 218], the Court of Appeal issued a peremptory writ directing the superior court to sustain a demurrer in part because of the conclusory allegations relating to punitive damages.
Clauson v. Superior Court
67 Cal.App.4th 1253 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) Cited 36 times
Deciding whether plaintiffs could seek at the pleading stage punitive damages and statutory penalties for unlawful wiretapping
Hall v. Aurora Loan Servs. LLC
215 Cal.App.4th 1134 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) Cited 13 times
Holding that a real estate agent has a duty to notify visitors of marketed property of concealed dangerous conditions of which the agent has actual or constructive knowledge
Flyer's Body Shop Profit Sharing Plan v. Ticor Title Ins. Co.
185 Cal.App.3d 1149 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986) Cited 46 times
Concluding that plaintiff was not entitled to recover attorney fees pursuant to the tort of another doctrine because connection between third party's actions leading to incursion of fees and defendant's negligence was "too attenuated" to be a "proximate result"
Rule 2.112 - Separate causes of action, counts, and defenses
Cal. R. 2.112 Cited 57 times
Each separately stated cause of action, count, or defense must specifically state: (1) Its number (e.g., "first cause of action"); (2) Its nature (e.g., "for fraud"); (3) The party asserting it if more than one party is represented on the pleading (e.g., "by plaintiff Jones"); and (4) The party or parties to whom it is directed (e.g., "against defendant Smith"). Cal. R. Ct. 2.112

Ruling on Submitted Matter

8 Cited authorities

In Taylor, the California Supreme Court examined whether the act of driving while intoxicated constituted malice for the purposes of a CC § 3294 punitive damages award.

Holding that although defendants had been "disingenuous" and acted with "willful and conscious disregard" of the plaintiff's interests, their conduct did not "reach the level of despicability found in cases in which punitive damages were found to be proper"

Holding that punitive damages were not appropriate where there was an absence of a false reason to hide an illegal termination and an absence of evidence showing a pattern of unwarranted criticism

In G.D. Searle Co. v. Superior Court (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 22 [ 122 Cal.Rptr. 218], the Court of Appeal issued a peremptory writ directing the superior court to sustain a demurrer in part because of the conclusory allegations relating to punitive damages.

Deciding whether plaintiffs could seek at the pleading stage punitive damages and statutory penalties for unlawful wiretapping

Holding that a real estate agent has a duty to notify visitors of marketed property of concealed dangerous conditions of which the agent has actual or constructive knowledge

Concluding that plaintiff was not entitled to recover attorney fees pursuant to the tort of another doctrine because connection between third party's actions leading to incursion of fees and defendant's negligence was "too attenuated" to be a "proximate result"