On November 25, 2020 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Katz, Jami Handelman,
and
Does 1-25, Inclusive,
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith,
for PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE
in the District Court of San Francisco County.
Preview
1 DONALD J. PUTTERMAN (SBN 90822)
E-mail: dputterman@plylaw.com
2 DANNIELLE M. CAMPBELL (SBN 303204)
E-mail: dcampbell@plylaw.com ELECTRONICALLY
3 PUTTERMAN | YU LLP F I L E D
345 California Street, Suite 1160 Superior Court of California,
4 San Francisco, CA 94104 County of San Francisco
Tel: (415) 839-8779 03/25/2021
5 Fax: (415) 727-1363 Clerk of the Court
BY: EDNALEEN ALEGRE
6 Attorneys for Plaintiff Deputy Clerk
JAMI HANDELMAN KATZ
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
9
10
JAMI HANDELMAN KATZ Case No. RG19040652
11
Plaintiff, JAMI HANDELMAN KATZ’S NOTICE
12 OF NON-OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT MERRILL LYNCH,
13 v. PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH
INCORPORATED’S MOTION TO
14 MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES
SMITH INCORPORATED, a Delaware ALLEGATIONS
15
Corporation; and DOES 1-25, inclusive,
Defendants. [Filed concurrently with Plaintiff’s
16 Opposition to Defendant’s Demurrer;
Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to Compel
17 Arbitration and to Stay Proceedings Pending
Arbitration; and Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike
18 “Terms and Conditions” Exhibits]
19
Date: April 8, 2021
20 Time: 9:30 a.m.
Dept: 302
21 Judge: Hon. Ethan P. Schulman
22 Complaint Filed: November 25, 2020
23
24
25
26
27
28
CASE NO. CGC-20-588007
PLAINTIFF KATZ’S NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER &
SMITH INC.’S MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES ALLEGATIONS
1 On March 4, 2021, Defendant Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated’s (herein
2 “MLPF&S” or “Defendant”) did move the Court, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 435, for
3 an order striking from Plaintiff Jami Handelman Katz's Complaint the punitive damages allegations,
4 including specifically those punitive damages allegations in the Second and Third Causes of Action
5 and the request for punitive damages in the Prayer for Relief. The motion was styled “Defendant
6 Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Strike
7 Punitive Damages Allegations (the “Motion”).
8 Upon review and consideration of these two causes of action—Breach of Fiduciary Duty and
9 Negligent Misrepresentation and MLPF&S’s moving papers, Plaintiff, by and through her counsel,
10 informs the Court and all known parties that she does not oppose the Motion.
11
12 Dated: March 25, 2021 Respectfully submitted,
13 PUTTERMAN | YU LLP
14
15 By:
Donald J. Putterman
16 Dannielle M. Campbell
Attorneys for Plaintiff
17 JAMI HANDELMAN KATZ
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 CASE NO. CGC-20-588007
PLAINTIFF KATZ’S NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER &
SMITH INC.’S MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES ALLEGATIONS
Document Filed Date
March 25, 2021
Case Filing Date
November 25, 2020
Category
PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
1 DONALD J. PUTTERMAN (SBN 90822) E-mail: dputterman@plylaw.com 2 DANNIELLE M. CAMPBELL (SBN 303204) E-mail: dcampbell@plylaw.com ELECTRONICALLY 3 PUTTERMAN | YU LLP F I L E D 345 California Street, Suite 1160 Superior Court of California, 4 San Francisco, CA 94104 County of San Francisco Tel: (415) 839-8779 03/25/2021 5 Fax: (415) 727-1363 Clerk of the Court BY: EDNALEEN ALEGRE 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff Deputy Clerk JAMI HANDELMAN KATZ 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 9 10 JAMI HANDELMAN KATZ Case No. RG19040652 11 Plaintiff, JAMI HANDELMAN KATZ’S NOTICE 12 OF NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT MERRILL LYNCH, 13 v. PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED’S MOTION TO 14 MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES SMITH INCORPORATED, a Delaware ALLEGATIONS 15 Corporation; and DOES 1-25, inclusive, Defendants. [Filed concurrently with Plaintiff’s 16 Opposition to Defendant’s Demurrer; Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to Compel 17 Arbitration and to Stay Proceedings Pending Arbitration; and Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike 18 “Terms and Conditions” Exhibits] 19 Date: April 8, 2021 20 Time: 9:30 a.m. Dept: 302 21 Judge: Hon. Ethan P. Schulman 22 Complaint Filed: November 25, 2020 23 24 25 26 27 28 CASE NO. CGC-20-588007 PLAINTIFF KATZ’S NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC.’S MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES ALLEGATIONS 1 On March 4, 2021, Defendant Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated’s (herein 2 “MLPF&S” or “Defendant”) did move the Court, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 435, for 3 an order striking from Plaintiff Jami Handelman Katz's Complaint the punitive damages allegations, 4 including specifically those punitive damages allegations in the Second and Third Causes of Action 5 and the request for punitive damages in the Prayer for Relief. The motion was styled “Defendant 6 Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Strike 7 Punitive Damages Allegations (the “Motion”). 8 Upon review and consideration of these two causes of action—Breach of Fiduciary Duty and 9 Negligent Misrepresentation and MLPF&S’s moving papers, Plaintiff, by and through her counsel, 10 informs the Court and all known parties that she does not oppose the Motion. 11 12 Dated: March 25, 2021 Respectfully submitted, 13 PUTTERMAN | YU LLP 14 15 By: Donald J. Putterman 16 Dannielle M. Campbell Attorneys for Plaintiff 17 JAMI HANDELMAN KATZ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 CASE NO. CGC-20-588007 PLAINTIFF KATZ’S NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC.’S MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES ALLEGATIONS