arrow left
arrow right
  • ADAM MUHAMMAD VS. MIKEISHA SCOTT ET AL PERSONAL INJURY/PROPERTY DAMAGE - NON-VEHICLE RELATED document preview
  • ADAM MUHAMMAD VS. MIKEISHA SCOTT ET AL PERSONAL INJURY/PROPERTY DAMAGE - NON-VEHICLE RELATED document preview
  • ADAM MUHAMMAD VS. MIKEISHA SCOTT ET AL PERSONAL INJURY/PROPERTY DAMAGE - NON-VEHICLE RELATED document preview
  • ADAM MUHAMMAD VS. MIKEISHA SCOTT ET AL PERSONAL INJURY/PROPERTY DAMAGE - NON-VEHICLE RELATED document preview
  • ADAM MUHAMMAD VS. MIKEISHA SCOTT ET AL PERSONAL INJURY/PROPERTY DAMAGE - NON-VEHICLE RELATED document preview
  • ADAM MUHAMMAD VS. MIKEISHA SCOTT ET AL PERSONAL INJURY/PROPERTY DAMAGE - NON-VEHICLE RELATED document preview
  • ADAM MUHAMMAD VS. MIKEISHA SCOTT ET AL PERSONAL INJURY/PROPERTY DAMAGE - NON-VEHICLE RELATED document preview
  • ADAM MUHAMMAD VS. MIKEISHA SCOTT ET AL PERSONAL INJURY/PROPERTY DAMAGE - NON-VEHICLE RELATED document preview
						
                                

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]