On August 18, 2020 a
Party Notice
was filed
involving a dispute between
Dennis-Hill, Donna Lynn,
Hill Iii, Charles Anthony,
and
Does 1-10,
Zuniga, Antonio,
for Personal Injury Motor Vehicle Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
Superior Court of California
County of San Bernardino '
247 W. Third Street, Dept. 523
E LE D
San Bernardino. CA 92415—0210 COUNTSyPELIOR COURT
0F SAN BEHNARDINO
SAN B EHNAHDINO
DISTRICT
FEB 2 5 2021
.
BY
(Dmflmal#wN—¥
MON! '
—
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT
HILL,m, e t a I,
Case No.: CIVDszo1691o
Plaintiff,
ZUNIGA RULING ON DEFENDANTS MOTION TO
'
STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES AND
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
Defendants
fl
on Defendant’s Motion to
mfimm§u~é0mm~lwm#wN—‘O
NNNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA
These matters came before the court for a hearing
Strike Punitive Damages and Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions. The court has reviewed
and considered the briefs of the parties as well as the arguments of counsel and issues
its ruling as follows:
FACTUALANQIOR PROCE_DURAL CONTgfl
This is an action for personal injuries resulting from an auto accident. In their
complaint filed on August 18, 2020, plaintiff Charles Anthony Hill, ||| alleges defendant
Antonio Zuniga (Zuniga) was operating his vehicle negligently on State Route 138 while
under the influence of alcohol. Zuniga allegedly turned his vehicle to the left at 65 miles
per hour, resulting in a head—on collision. Hill allegedly suffered severe injuries. Hill’s
Dennis-Hill (together, Plaintiffs) allege two causes of action:
wife, plaintiff Donna Lynn
negligence; and (2) loss of consortium. Plaintiffs
seek punitive damages.
(1)
On October 23, 2020, Zuniga filed this motion to strike punitive damages.
oppose the motion. Zuniga filed reply. Plaintiffs believed the motion to strike to
Plaintiffs
0mfl0§01#wN—‘
be frivolous and requested its withdrawal. When Zuniga did not withdraw the motion,
Zuniga opposes
Plaintiffs filed a motion for sanctions under Code Civ. Proc. § 128.7.
the motion.
DISCUSSION
IVLoth to Strike Punitivew
10 Zuniga has moved to strike any references to punitive damages and the
corresponding prayer. Zuniga argues general allegations of negligence and an
12 allegation of being under the influence are insufficient allegations to warrant punitive
13 damages. Zuniga also seeks to strike the prayer for prejudgment interest and attorney
14 fees.
15 A motion to strike any pleading must be filed within the time allowed to respond
16 to the pleading, e.g., 30 days after service of the complaint or cross-complaint unless
17 extended by court order. Code Civ. Proc. § 435, subd. (b). The court may, upon a
18 motion made pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 435, or at any time in its discretion, and
19 upon terms it deems proper, strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed
20 in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court. Code Civ.
21 Proc. § 436. Motions to strike are disfavored, and the policy is to construe the pleadings
22 liberally, with a view to substantial justice. Code Civ. Proc. § 452.
23 Under Code Civ. Proc. § 435.5, before filing a motion to strike, the moving party
24 shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading
25 that is subject to the motion to strike. Under Code Civ. Proc. § 435.5, subd. (a)(2), the
26 meet and confer shall occur at least five days before the date the motion to strike must
27 be filed. A meet and confer declaration shall be filed and served with the motion to
28 strike. Code Civ. Proc. § 435.5, subd. (a)(3).
Document Filed Date
March 08, 2021
Case Filing Date
August 18, 2020
Category
Personal Injury Motor Vehicle Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Superior Court of California County of San Bernardino ' 247 W. Third Street, Dept. 523 E LE D San Bernardino. CA 92415—0210 COUNTSyPELIOR COURT 0F SAN BEHNARDINO SAN B EHNAHDINO DISTRICT FEB 2 5 2021 . BY (Dmflmal#wN—¥ MON! ' — SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT HILL,m, e t a I, Case No.: CIVDszo1691o Plaintiff, ZUNIGA RULING ON DEFENDANTS MOTION TO ' STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS Defendants fl on Defendant’s Motion to mfimm§u~é0mm~lwm#wN—‘O NNNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA These matters came before the court for a hearing Strike Punitive Damages and Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions. The court has reviewed and considered the briefs of the parties as well as the arguments of counsel and issues its ruling as follows: FACTUALANQIOR PROCE_DURAL CONTgfl This is an action for personal injuries resulting from an auto accident. In their complaint filed on August 18, 2020, plaintiff Charles Anthony Hill, ||| alleges defendant Antonio Zuniga (Zuniga) was operating his vehicle negligently on State Route 138 while under the influence of alcohol. Zuniga allegedly turned his vehicle to the left at 65 miles per hour, resulting in a head—on collision. Hill allegedly suffered severe injuries. Hill’s Dennis-Hill (together, Plaintiffs) allege two causes of action: wife, plaintiff Donna Lynn negligence; and (2) loss of consortium. Plaintiffs seek punitive damages. (1) On October 23, 2020, Zuniga filed this motion to strike punitive damages. oppose the motion. Zuniga filed reply. Plaintiffs believed the motion to strike to Plaintiffs 0mfl0§01#wN—‘ be frivolous and requested its withdrawal. When Zuniga did not withdraw the motion, Zuniga opposes Plaintiffs filed a motion for sanctions under Code Civ. Proc. § 128.7. the motion. DISCUSSION IVLoth to Strike Punitivew 10 Zuniga has moved to strike any references to punitive damages and the corresponding prayer. Zuniga argues general allegations of negligence and an 12 allegation of being under the influence are insufficient allegations to warrant punitive 13 damages. Zuniga also seeks to strike the prayer for prejudgment interest and attorney 14 fees. 15 A motion to strike any pleading must be filed within the time allowed to respond 16 to the pleading, e.g., 30 days after service of the complaint or cross-complaint unless 17 extended by court order. Code Civ. Proc. § 435, subd. (b). The court may, upon a 18 motion made pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 435, or at any time in its discretion, and 19 upon terms it deems proper, strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed 20 in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court. Code Civ. 21 Proc. § 436. Motions to strike are disfavored, and the policy is to construe the pleadings 22 liberally, with a view to substantial justice. Code Civ. Proc. § 452. 23 Under Code Civ. Proc. § 435.5, before filing a motion to strike, the moving party 24 shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading 25 that is subject to the motion to strike. Under Code Civ. Proc. § 435.5, subd. (a)(2), the 26 meet and confer shall occur at least five days before the date the motion to strike must 27 be filed. A meet and confer declaration shall be filed and served with the motion to 28 strike. Code Civ. Proc. § 435.5, subd. (a)(3).