On March 18, 2019 a
Hearing
was filed
involving a dispute between
M.D.L.F.,
and
Arrowood, Cindy,
Does 1 Through 10, Inclusive,
Fisher, Diana,
Morongo Unified School District, A Government Entity,
for Personal Injury Non-Motor Vehicle Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
s
1
rc n U u
C CrxL FO JIA
CrLNTY OF S rJ
b Afd ES FiidARD i
t D NO
j ii THiCT
1 MARTIN MARTIN LLP
Janet A Ariza Esq SBN 144629 02U
i 2 jarizanae martin martin com
David S Mi11er Esq SBN 195634 Y
3 dmiller a martin martin com ti f s y
r
f aJ tY
3530 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1650 FILING FEE EXEMPT PURSUANT
4 Los Angeles California 90010 TO GOVERNMENT CODE 6103
Telephone 213 388 4747
5 Facsimile 213 388 6655
6 Attorney for Defendants
MORONGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
7 CINDY ARROWOOD and DIANA FISHER
g SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
10
M D LF a minor by and through his CASE NO CIV DS1908236
11
Guardian ad Litem MELINDA FIELDS Hon Lynn Poncin Dept S28
12
Plaintiff DEFENDANTS REPLY TO
13 PLAINTIFF M D L F S OPPOSITION
VS
TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO
14
STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE SECOND
MORONGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
15 AMENDED COMPLAINT
a government entity
MORANDUM OF POINTS AND a
CINDY ARROWOOD an individual
16 AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
DIANA FISHER an individual
THEREOF
17 and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive
1g Defendants DATE September 3 2020
TIME 10 00 A M
19
DEPT S28
20
Complaint Filed March 18 2019
21
Trial Date None Set
22
COMES NOW Defendants MORONGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT MUSD
23
CINDY ARROWOOD and DIANA FISHER in Reply to the Opposition by Plaintiff
24
M D L F a minor by and through his Guardian MELINDA FIELDS to Defendant s Motion to
25
Strike Portions of the Second Amended Complaint SAC as follows
26
27
28
Page 1 of 4
DEFS REPLY TO PL S OPP TO DEFS MOT TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE SAC
1 I INTRODUCTION
2 This Motion to Strike relates to the action filed by PlaintiffM D L F in connection
3 with two separate and improperly joined events in 2018 This first is an incident in which
4 Defendant CINDY ARROWOOD attempted to stop the Plaintiff from spitting on her and other
5 school employees in the room The second is merely a claim without any factual support or
6 background by the Plaintiffthat Defendant DIANA FISHER smashed Plaintiff s head into a
7 desk thereby bruising his legs below the knee Plaintiffseek punitive damages based solely on
8 his conclusions that alleged conduct of MS ARROWOOD and MS FISHER was intentional
9 and despicable Defendants seek to strike those conclusions and the punitive damages that
10 arise from them In addition Defendants seek to strike the Eighth Cause of Action for
11 violations of the Ralph Act which Plaintiff added to the Second Amended Complaint SAC
12 although it was not contemplated nor authorized by the Parties in their Stipulation that allowed
13 Plaintiff to file the SAC
14 II LEGAL ARGUMENT
15 A Conclusions are not enough to justify a request for punitive damages in a
16 complaint
17 In G D Searle Co v Superior Court the Court sustained the Demurrer to a
18 Complaint that alleged wrongful knowing and willful conduct in strictly conclusory terms 49
19 Cal App 3d 22 32 1975 Plaintiff s SAC presents the same situation In his Opposition
20 Plaintiff describes the actions of MS ARROWOOD and MS FISHER as warfare tactics
21 and relying heavily on his thesaurus refers to the conduct as violent malicious extremely
22 reckless despicable deplorable reprehensible and wayward Opp 5 8 8 6 The facts alleged
23 in the SAC do not indicate anything even similar to that
24 MS ARROWOOD briefly put a jacket over Plaintiff s head to shield herself and others
25 from his spit As for MS FISHER s conduct there are no actual allegations of what she did
26 Material facts alleged in the complaint are treated as true for the purpose of ruling on the
27 demurrer Kiseskev v Carpenters Tr for So California 144 Cal App 3d 222 228 1983
28 This means that the Court must accept as true that the Plaintiff came home from school with
Page 2 of 4
DEFS REPLY TO PL S OPP TO DEFS MOT TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE SAC
Document Filed Date
August 26, 2020
Case Filing Date
March 18, 2019
Category
Personal Injury Non-Motor Vehicle Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
s 1 rc n U u C CrxL FO JIA CrLNTY OF S rJ b Afd ES FiidARD i t D NO j ii THiCT 1 MARTIN MARTIN LLP Janet A Ariza Esq SBN 144629 02U i 2 jarizanae martin martin com David S Mi11er Esq SBN 195634 Y 3 dmiller a martin martin com ti f s y r f aJ tY 3530 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1650 FILING FEE EXEMPT PURSUANT 4 Los Angeles California 90010 TO GOVERNMENT CODE 6103 Telephone 213 388 4747 5 Facsimile 213 388 6655 6 Attorney for Defendants MORONGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 7 CINDY ARROWOOD and DIANA FISHER g SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 10 M D LF a minor by and through his CASE NO CIV DS1908236 11 Guardian ad Litem MELINDA FIELDS Hon Lynn Poncin Dept S28 12 Plaintiff DEFENDANTS REPLY TO 13 PLAINTIFF M D L F S OPPOSITION VS TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO 14 STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE SECOND MORONGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 15 AMENDED COMPLAINT a government entity MORANDUM OF POINTS AND a CINDY ARROWOOD an individual 16 AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT DIANA FISHER an individual THEREOF 17 and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive 1g Defendants DATE September 3 2020 TIME 10 00 A M 19 DEPT S28 20 Complaint Filed March 18 2019 21 Trial Date None Set 22 COMES NOW Defendants MORONGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT MUSD 23 CINDY ARROWOOD and DIANA FISHER in Reply to the Opposition by Plaintiff 24 M D L F a minor by and through his Guardian MELINDA FIELDS to Defendant s Motion to 25 Strike Portions of the Second Amended Complaint SAC as follows 26 27 28 Page 1 of 4 DEFS REPLY TO PL S OPP TO DEFS MOT TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE SAC 1 I INTRODUCTION 2 This Motion to Strike relates to the action filed by PlaintiffM D L F in connection 3 with two separate and improperly joined events in 2018 This first is an incident in which 4 Defendant CINDY ARROWOOD attempted to stop the Plaintiff from spitting on her and other 5 school employees in the room The second is merely a claim without any factual support or 6 background by the Plaintiffthat Defendant DIANA FISHER smashed Plaintiff s head into a 7 desk thereby bruising his legs below the knee Plaintiffseek punitive damages based solely on 8 his conclusions that alleged conduct of MS ARROWOOD and MS FISHER was intentional 9 and despicable Defendants seek to strike those conclusions and the punitive damages that 10 arise from them In addition Defendants seek to strike the Eighth Cause of Action for 11 violations of the Ralph Act which Plaintiff added to the Second Amended Complaint SAC 12 although it was not contemplated nor authorized by the Parties in their Stipulation that allowed 13 Plaintiff to file the SAC 14 II LEGAL ARGUMENT 15 A Conclusions are not enough to justify a request for punitive damages in a 16 complaint 17 In G D Searle Co v Superior Court the Court sustained the Demurrer to a 18 Complaint that alleged wrongful knowing and willful conduct in strictly conclusory terms 49 19 Cal App 3d 22 32 1975 Plaintiff s SAC presents the same situation In his Opposition 20 Plaintiff describes the actions of MS ARROWOOD and MS FISHER as warfare tactics 21 and relying heavily on his thesaurus refers to the conduct as violent malicious extremely 22 reckless despicable deplorable reprehensible and wayward Opp 5 8 8 6 The facts alleged 23 in the SAC do not indicate anything even similar to that 24 MS ARROWOOD briefly put a jacket over Plaintiff s head to shield herself and others 25 from his spit As for MS FISHER s conduct there are no actual allegations of what she did 26 Material facts alleged in the complaint are treated as true for the purpose of ruling on the 27 demurrer Kiseskev v Carpenters Tr for So California 144 Cal App 3d 222 228 1983 28 This means that the Court must accept as true that the Plaintiff came home from school with Page 2 of 4 DEFS REPLY TO PL S OPP TO DEFS MOT TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE SAC