The Court grants the Motion to File a First Amended Complaint.
Factual / Procedural Context
This is a vehicular collision case. On July 21, 2017, a vehicle driven by Plaintiff Karanbir Singh Tung (“Mr. Tung”) was struck by a vehicle driven by Defendant Sara Marie Sellem (“Defendant”) in an intersection. Plaintiff Yubran Tung (“Ms. Tung”) was a passenger in Mr. Tung’s vehicle. Mr. and Ms. Tung (collectively “Plaintiffs”) allege that Defendant was looking at her cellphone when she went through the intersection during a red light at a high rate of speed. On June 5, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint, in which they assert two causes of action for: (1) Motor Vehicle; and (2) General Negligence.
On May 15, 2020, Plaintiff moved for leave to file a first amended complaint (FAC) to add a claim for punitive damages. They assert that, during her deposition, Defendant testified that she was looking at her cellphone at the time of the incident, which they argue constitutes malice. Defendant
Hearing Date
August 21, 2020
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
The Court grants the Motion to File a First Amended Complaint.
Factual / Procedural Context
This is a vehicular collision case. On July 21, 2017, a vehicle driven by Plaintiff Karanbir Singh Tung (“Mr. Tung”) was struck by a vehicle driven by Defendant Sara Marie Sellem (“Defendant”) in an intersection. Plaintiff Yubran Tung (“Ms. Tung”) was a passenger in Mr. Tung’s vehicle. Mr. and Ms. Tung (collectively “Plaintiffs”) allege that Defendant was looking at her cellphone when she went through the intersection during a red light at a high rate of speed. On June 5, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint, in which they assert two causes of action for: (1) Motor Vehicle; and (2) General Negligence.
On May 15, 2020, Plaintiff moved for leave to file a first amended complaint (FAC) to add a claim for punitive damages. They assert that, during her deposition, Defendant testified that she was looking at her cellphone at the time of the incident, which they argue constitutes malice. Defendant