Preview
Oo oN DW BR WN
YN NN YN NN KD! ee Be Be Be Be Be eB
oI AA ROH = SOD OA DH RF WH SK
David A. Clinton, Esq. (Bar No. 150107)
Marlon D’Oyen, Esq. (Bar No. 224124)
Laurie C. Book, Esq. (Bar No. 280368)
CLINTON & CLINTON
100 Oceangate, 14th Floor
Long Beach, California 90802
Ph.: (562) 216-5000
Fax: (562) 216-5001
ELECTRONICALLY
FILED
‘Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
05/24/2016
Clerk of the Court
BY:NOELIA RIVERA
Deputy Clerk
Attorneys for Defendants, MIKEISHA SCOTT, JALON JACKSON, AND NATALIE
DIXON
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
ADAM MUHAMMAD,
Plaintiff,
v.
MIKEISHA SCOTT AND JALON
JACKSON and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive,
Defendants.
eS SS SS SS SS HS SS SD
‘tl
Mt
il
‘it
Hf
Mt
Mf
Mf
FAC & C\Defendants\061-Allied Barton\1 81002-
Muhammad\Pleading\Reply (MTS)Final.doc
CASE NO.: CGC-15-547380
DEFENDANTS, MIKEISHA SCOTT,
JALON JACKSON, AND NATALIE
DIXON’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF,
ADAM MUHAMMAD’S OPPOSITION
TO THE MOTION TO STRIKE
Date: May 31, 2016
Time: 9:30 am
Dept: 302
Reserv No.: 05030531-06
Date Filed: August 14, 2015
Trial Date: None
Reply to Motion to Strike Opposition!Co oN DA FF WN
Rw NKR NY YK N ND YDB ee ee
eI AAR HNH HK SOC ON DH BB wWN KS CO
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
COMES NOW Defendants, MIKEISHA SCOTT, JALON JACKSON, AND
NATALIE DIXON (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”) submit the following
Reply to Plaintiff, Adam Muhammad’s Opposition to the Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Complaint.
I. LEGAL ARGUMENT
A. APARTY MAY OBJECT TO A COMPLAINT BY MOTION TO STRIKE ON
THE GROUNDS THAT THE PLEADING STATES CAUSES OF ACTION THAT
ARE IRRELEVANT, FALSE AND IMPROPER.
California Code of Civil Procedure, Sections 435 and 436 states in part that a court may
upon a proper motion:
“(a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.
(b) Strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with
the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.”
B. PLAINTIFF’S DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST THE
DEFENDANTS REMAIN UNSUPPORTED AND THEREFORE MUST BE
STRICKEN.
As stated in the underlying Motion to Strike, Plaintiff has failed to allege facts which
could support an award of punitive damages under any cause of action. Where punitive damages
are sought, the plaintiff must allege with specificity the facts upon which it bases its claim.
Blegen v. Superior Court (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 959, 963, 178 Cal.Rptr. 470. Plaintiff has at
length tried to cure this defect and stated every fact he desires whether or not it addresses the|
defects that precipitated the filing of this motion. Plaintiff has acknowledged that the recovery off
exemplary or punitive damages is governed by California Civil Code §3294, which specificall:
sets forth the type of conduct which justifies their award. Civil Code §3294 provides:
ttl
Mt
ti
FAC & C\Defendants\061-Allied Barton\15\002- 2
Muhammad\Pleading\Reply (MTS)Final.doc Reply to Motion to Strike ©, ition}Ce DH BF WN
RR YR NNN NY ee ee me ees
or AA FF BH eK SOON DH BF WN & S
"(a) In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is
proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud
or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake off
example and by way of punishing the defendant.”
(CCP §3294(a).) The words "oppression", "fraud" and "malice** are specifically defined
in Civil Code §3294: "(c) As used in this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) "Malice" means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the
plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious
disregard of the rights or safety of others.
(2) "Oppression" means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust
hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights.
(3) "Fraud" means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a
material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby,
depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.'* (CC § 3294(c).),
emphasis added. Civil Code §3294 was revised effective January 1. 1988 to clarify that conduct
must be despicable before exemplar}' or punitive damages could be awarded. The amendments
also provide for proof of such conduct by clear and convincing evidence.
Based on a through review of Plaintiff's Complaint it is readily apparent that Plaintiff hag
9 6,
recited every fact plausible, true or not, to support the requirement for “malice,” “oppression,” o1
“fraud.” Despite this exhaustive recitation of unsubstantiated facts, Plaintiff's request for
exemplary and punitive damages remains improper. There has been no clear and convincing
evidence provided which establishes that the alleged causes of action should result in punitive
damages. Put simply, Mikeisha Scott reported what she deemed to be inappropriate conduct by|
Plaintiff, Adam Muhammad and for that action Plaintiff is asking that she is punished for hey
interpretation of his questionable conduct.
Mi
Mf
Md
FAC & C\Defendants\061-Allied Barton\15\002- 3
Muhammad\Pleading\Reply (MTS)Final.doc Reply to ion to Strike Opposition|As was stated in the underlying Motion to Strike, Plaintiff has failed to allege the type off
malicious conduct that would support an award for punitive damages. Plaintiff has failed t
demonstrate that Defendants’ conduct rises to such an outrageous level that it should be treated}
as deliberate, wrongful intention to cause harm to the Plaintiff. The only specific allegations by
Plaintiff are that Defendant, Scott reported this matter and from that disclosure he speculates as
to her motivation for the same, his speculation as to her motivation to report this incident canno
lead to punitive damages.
There have been no factual assertions to establish that Defendants were aware. that
Plaintiff would lose his job. The specific allegations by Plaintiff are replete with factually
insufficient information and is based on speculation, conjecture and guesswork not enough t
warrant the inclusion of punitive damages. Although, Plaintiff has amended its complaint after aj
previous Demurrer and Motion to Strike was filed, this First Amended Complaint was merely his
opportunity to factually allege and insinuate facts to support punitive damages which are clearly
not warranted. Notwithstanding, Defendants graciously requests that this Court stricken)
punitive damages from the Complaint without leave to amend,
Il. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully requests that this Court grant this
Motion to Strike and stricken Punitive Damages without leave to amend.
DATED: May 24, 2016 CLINTON & CLINTON
J A
oo Ce
DAVID A. CLINTON, ESQ.
MARLON D’OYEN, ESQ.
LAURIE C. BOOK, ESQ.
Attorneys for Defendants,
MIKESHA SCOTT AND JALON
JACKSON
F:\C & C\Defendants\061-Allied Barton\15\002- 4
Muhammad\Pleading\Reply (MTS)Final.doc Reply to Motion to Strike Opposition0 Oo IN DH PWN
10
FAC & C\Defendants\061-Allied Barton\15\002-
Muhammad\Pleading\Reply (MTS)Final.doc
Reply to Motion to Strike Opposition|PROOF OF SERVICE:
(California Code of Civil Procedure § 1013A(3))
Tam employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18}
years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 100 Oceangate, Long Beach,
California 90802.
On May 24, 2016, I served the foregoing document described as: DEFENDANTS,
MIKEISHA SCOTT, JALON JACKSON, AND NATALIE DIXON’S REPLY TO
PLAINTIFF, ADAM MUHAMMAD’S OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO STRIKE
on the parties to this action by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope or package
addressed to the person(s) at the address(es) as set forth below and caused said envelope or
package to be served in the following manner:
SEE SERVICE LIST BELOW
(By Mail) I caused such envelope or package with postage thereon fully prepaid to be
placed in the United States mail at Long Beach, California. 1 am readily familiar with
this firm's practice of collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. It is
deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of
business, I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if
postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit
X_ for the mailing in affidavit.
(By Fax) I caused such documents to be faxed at Long Beach, California from Fax
number (562)216-5001. The facsimile machine I used compiled with Rule 2.301 of
the California Rules of Court, and no error was reported by the machine. Pursuant to
Rule 2.306(h), I caused the machine to print a record of the transmission, a copy of
which is attached to this declaration.
(By Personal Service) I caused such envelope or package to be delivered by hand to the
addressee(s).
(By Electronic Mail) Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept
service by e-mail or electronic transmission, I caused the document(s) to be sent from
e-mail address [birdwell@clinton-clinton.com to the person(s)s at the e-mail
address(es) listed below. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the
transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was
unsuccessful.
(State) I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
__X__ that the foregoing is true and correct.
(Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court
at whose direction this service was made. 7 >
Doh PD +
Executed on May 24, 2016 at Long Beach, California. ) | W ?
Neel A Dy tu
VACHEVLE BIRDWELL
\ 4
XL
FAC & C\Defendants\061-Allied Barton\15\002- 6
Muhammad\Pleading\Reply (MTS)Final.doc Reply to Motion to Strike Oppositionoem AH PF WN
10
SERVICE LIST:
Adam Muhammad Pro Per Plaintiff
1716 Felton Street
San Francisco, California 94134
Telephone: (415) 756-7055
Plaintiff in Pro Per
FAC & C\Defendants\061-Allied Barton\15\002- 7
Muhammad\Pleading\Reply (MTS)Final.doc
Reply to Motion to Strike Opposition]