(a)The court may, for good cause, grant any defendant a protective order requiring the plaintiff to produce evidence of a prima facie case of liability for damages pursuant to Section 3294, prior to the introduction of evidence of:
(1)The profits the defendant has gained by virtue of the wrongful course of conduct of the nature and type shown by the evidence.
(2)The financial condition of the defendant.
(b)Nothing in this section
shall prohibit the introduction of prima facie evidence to establish a case for damages pursuant to Section 3294.
(c)No pretrial discovery by the plaintiff shall be permitted with respect to the evidence referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (a) unless the court enters an order permitting such discovery pursuant to this subdivision. However, the plaintiff may subpoena documents or witnesses to be available at the trial for the purpose of establishing the profits or financial condition referred to in subdivision (a), and the defendant may be required to identify documents in the defendant’s possession which are relevant and admissible for that purpose and the witnesses employed by or related to the defendant who would be most competent to testify to those facts. Upon motion by the plaintiff supported by appropriate affidavits and after a hearing, if the court deems a hearing to be necessary, the court may at any time enter an
order permitting the discovery otherwise prohibited by this subdivision if the court finds, on the basis of the supporting and opposing affidavits presented, that the plaintiff has established that there is a substantial probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim pursuant to Section 3294. Such order shall not be considered to be a determination on the merits of the claim or any defense thereto and shall not be given in evidence or referred to at the trial.
(d)The court shall, on application of any defendant, preclude the admission of evidence of that defendant’s profits or financial condition until after the trier of fact returns a verdict for plaintiff awarding actual damages and finds that a defendant is guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud in accordance with Section 3294. Evidence of profit and financial condition shall be admissible only as to the defendant or defendants found to be liable to the plaintiff and to be guilty
of malice, oppression, or fraud. Evidence of profit and financial condition shall be presented to the same trier of fact that found for the plaintiff and found one or more defendants guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud.
(e)No claim for exemplary damages shall state an amount or amounts.
(f)The amendments to this section made by Senate Bill No. 241 of the 1987–88 Regular Session apply to all actions in which the initial trial has not commenced prior to January 1, 1988.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
80
cases (
13 in the last 5 years), 1982–2024 · leading case:
Adams v. Murakami, 813 P.2d 1348 (Cal. 1991).
Adams v. Murakami, 813 P.2d 1348 (Cal. 1991).
· cites it 6× “(Civ. Code, § 3295, subd. (d); see also BAJI No.”
Century Sur. Co. v. Polisso, 2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4273 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 4× “At Century’s request, the trial court bifurcated the trial on the punitive damages claim (Civ. Code, § 3295, subd. (d)) and at the close of the evidence, the trial court granted the Polissos’ motion to amend their cross-complaint to add a cause of action for malicious…”
BMW of North Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996).
· cites it 2× “Mandatory Bifurcation of Liability and Punitive Damages Determinations California Cal. Civ. Code Ann. § 3295(d) (West Supp.”
Soto v. Borgwarner Morse Tec Inc. CA2/4, 239 Cal. App. 4th 165 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 4× “To obtain the order described in Civil Code section 3295, the plaintiff must follow the procedure set forth in the statute: “Upon motion by the plaintiff supported by appropriate affidavits and after a hearing, if the court deems a hearing to be necessary, the court may at any…”
Kerner v. Superior Court, 206 Cal. App. 4th 84 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 3× “Defendants challenge orders permitting discovery of their financial condition in connection with Widom’s claims for punitive damages (Civ. Code, § 3295, subd. (c)) and, based on collateral estoppel, granting a motion in limine to exclude any evidence of purported domestic…”
In Re Est. of Young, 72 Cal. Rptr. 3d 520 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “(Civ.Code, § 3295.) The court asked if that was really necessary, since this was a bench trial, but it granted the request.”
Kinda v. Carpenter, 247 Cal. App. 4th 1268 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “) 4 Civil Code section 3295 authorizes a court to order pretrial discovery of a defendant’s financial condition if “the plaintiff has established that there is a substantial probability” of prevailing on the claim.”
Coll. Hosp., Inc. v. Superior Court, 882 P.2d 894 (Cal. 1994).
· cites it 2× “(Civ. Code, § 3295, subds. (a)-(e).) These provisions were apparently intended to curtail use of such claims as a tactical ploy.”
Kelly v. Haag, 52 Cal. Rptr. 3d 126 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “[2] Civil Code section 3295 was enacted in 1979 to limit the circumstances under which evidence of the defendant's financial condition may be discovered and admitted, authorize bifurcation of the punitive damages phase of the trial, and bar disclosure of the amount of punitive…”
Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co., 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 948 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “(Civ. Code, § 3295, subds. (a)-(e).) These provisions were apparently intended to curtail use of such claims as a tactical ploy.”
Weeks v. Baker & McKenzie, 74 Cal. Rptr. 2d 510 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “) The Legislature therefore enacted Civil Code section 3295. Among other things, Civil Code section 3295 requires trial courts,.”
Cal. Civil Code § 3295(a): 1 case
Cal. Civil Code § 3295(d): 5 cases
BMW of North Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996).
“Mandatory Bifurcation of Liability and Punitive Damages Determinations California Cal. Civ. Code Ann. § 3295(d) (West Supp.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.