JANE LS DOE, AN INDIVIDUAL vs DR. STEPHEN FREDERICK KNOX, et al.

24CV013840: JANE LS DOE, AN INDIVIDUAL vs DR. STEPHEN FREDERICK KNOX, et al. 06/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike in Department 16C

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Please take notice, Department 54 has moved to Department 16C at the Tani G. Cantil- Sakauye Courthouse. The new courthouse is located at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Sutter Medical Group’s (“Defendant”) motion to strike portions of Plaintiff Jane LS Doe (“Plaintiff”) Third Amended Complaint (“3AC”) is ruled upon as follows.

I.

Background

This action arises out of an alleged sexual assault by Defendant Dr. Stephen Knox (“Knox”) against Plaintiff that occurred June 17, 2021. (3AC, ¶ 1.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was aware of prior complaints of sexual misconduct against Knox. (Id., ¶ 41.) Plaintiff alleges that despite this actual knowledge Defendant intentionally retained and continued to assign Knox unsupervised access to female patients, failed to initiate meaningful investigation or disciplinary action, and failed to report his misconduct to police of the Medical Board. (Id., ¶¶ 42-55, 70-72.)

Plaintiff’s operative 3AC alleges the following causes of action: (1) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (2) gender violence; (3) sexual harassment; (4) sexual assault; (5) sexual battery; (6) negligence; (7) negligent supervision; (8) negligent hiring and retention; and (9) negligent failure to warn, train and educate.

Defendant moves to strike the punitive damages allegations in paragraphs 66, 78, and 94 of the Third Amended Complaint and paragraph 7 of the Prayer. Defendant also moves to strike the attorney’s fees allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the Prayer. Finally, Defendant moves to strike Plaintiff’s alter ego allegations in paragraphs 19 and 24 of the 3AC.

Plaintiff opposes.

II. Legal Standard

24CV013840: JANE LS DOE, AN INDIVIDUAL vs DR. STEPHEN FREDERICK KNOX, et al. 06/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike in Department 16C

“The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to [Code of Civil Procedure] Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 436.) The grounds for a motion to strike must appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice. (Code Civ.

Proc. § 437(a).) In ruling on a motion to strike, the allegations in the complaint are considered in context and presumed to be true: “[J]udges read allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth.” (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.) The use of the motion to strike should be cautious and sparing. It should not be a procedural “line item veto.” (PH II, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1683.)

III.

Discussion

The Court incorporates its ruling on Defendant’s concurrently filed demurrer herein.

A. Punitive Damages

Defendant argues that Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient acts showing that Defendant’s officers, directors, or managing agents engaged in or ratified Knox’s alleged misconduct.

The failure to investigate or respond to charges that an employee has committed an intentional tort or the failure to discharge the employee may be evidence of ratification. (C.R. v. Tenet Healthcare Corp. (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1110.) “If the employer, after knowledge of or opportunity to learn of the agent’s misconduct, continues the wrongdoer in service, the employer may become an abettor and may make himself liable in punitive damages. [Citations.]” (Murillo v. Rite Stuff Foods, Inc. (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 833, 852.)

As discussed in the Court’s ruling on Defendant’s demurrer, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that Defendant ratified Knox’s conduct as it received similar sexual misconduct complaints against Knox prior to Plaintiff’s alleged assault. As a result, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a basis for the imposition of punitive damages against Defendant.

The motions to strike punitive damages is DENIED.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV013840: JANE LS DOE, AN INDIVIDUAL vs DR. STEPHEN FREDERICK KNOX, et al. 06/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike in Department 16C

B. Attorney’s Fees

Defendant moves to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for attorney’s fees pursuant to Civil Code sections 51, 52, and 52.4 and Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.

Civil Code section 52.4 states, in relevant part:

(a) Any person who has been subjected to gender violence may bring a civil action for damages against any responsible party. The plaintiff may seek actual damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, any combination of those, or any other appropriate relief. A prevailing plaintiff may also be awarded attorney’s fees and costs.

...

(c) For purposes of this section, “gender violence” is a form of sex discrimination and means either of the following:

(1) One or more acts that would constitute a criminal offense under state law that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, committed at least in part based on the gender of the victim, whether or not those acts have resulted in criminal complaints, charges, prosecution, or conviction.

(2) A physical intrusion or physical invasion of a sexual nature under coercive conditions, whether or not those acts have resulted in criminal complaints, charges, prosecution, or conviction.

Here, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a basis to recover attorney’s fees pursuant to Civil Code section 54.2 against Knox. Defendant’s motion to strike appears to request that the Court strike the prayer for attorney’s fees as to all defendants rather than just those that pertain to the moving defendant. This request is improper since Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged at least one possible basis for recovery of attorney’s fees.

Therefore, Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for attorney’s fees is DENIED.

C. Alter Ego Allegations

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV013840: JANE LS DOE, AN INDIVIDUAL vs DR. STEPHEN FREDERICK KNOX, et al. 06/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike in Department 16C

The alter ego doctrine may be invoked where a plaintiff alleges: “(1) that there be such unity of interest and ownership that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individual no longer exist and (2) that, if the acts are treated as those of the corporation alone, an inequitable result will follow.” (Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 300.)

Defendant argues Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant and co-Defendant Sutter Health are alter egos of one another are conclusory and are insufficient to plead alter ego.

Plaintiff argues that she has sufficiently alleged that Defendant and Sutter Health “appear to operate both under the Sutter name - Sutter Health owns, directs, and controls Sutter Medical Group’s operations, potentially including strategic, financial, and compliance decisions, reflecting functional ownership and control beyond ordinary parent–affiliate relationships. They appear to present themselves to the public and counterparties as a single integrated enterprise under the ‘Sutter’ brand, using shared websites, email domains, marketing, patient portals, and centralized administrative functions, creating the appearance and reality of a single business,” citing to paragraphs 23-26 of the 3AC.

However, a review of the 3AC shows that Plaintiff has not alleged the facts set forth in its opposition. Instead, the 3AC contains only conclusory allegations that Defendant and Sutter Health are alter egos of each other.

Thus, Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s alter ego allegations in paragraphs 19 and 24 of the 3AC is GRANTED with leave to amend as it appears Plaintiff can allege facts which may cure this defect.

IV.

Disposition

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is strike is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s alter ego allegations with leave to amend as stated above. Defendant’s motion to strike the portions of Plaintiff’s 3AC regarding punitive damages and attorney’s fees is DENIED.

Plaintiff may file and serve a fourth amended complaint no later than July 7, 2026 to cure the defects identified above.

Although not required by Court rule or statute, Plaintiff is directed to present a copy of this order when the amended complaint is presented for filing. Defendant shall file and serve its response within 30 days thereafter, 35 days if the fourth amended complaint is

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV013840: JANE LS DOE, AN INDIVIDUAL vs DR. STEPHEN FREDERICK KNOX, et al. 06/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike in Department 16C

served by mail.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 16C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16030877014 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 160 3087 7014. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-services-transcripts. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV013840: JANE LS DOE, AN INDIVIDUAL vs DR. STEPHEN FREDERICK KNOX, et al. 06/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike in Department 16C

signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.