Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV03475, Date: 2022-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV03475    Hearing Date: December 13, 2022    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Plaintiff Christina Stever (Plaintiff) sued Defendants Patrick Fink and Steuber Corporation dba Alta Services (collectively, Defendants) based on a motor vehicle collision.   Defendants move to strike Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages in Plaintiff’s Complaint.  Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion 

Preliminarily, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed with the Court on January 28, 2021, is devoid of any allegation, claim or prayer related to punitive damages.  (See Complaint.)  The Complaint further makes no mention of “wanton or reckless disregard for the safety of others” as Defendants state in the instant motion.  ( See Defendants’ Motion to Strike, 3:20-21; see also Complaint.) 

Accordingly, the Court denies Defendants’ motion to strike punitive damages from the Complaint as procedurally defective.