Trisha Cardenas et al vs Avalonbay Communities, Inc. et al.

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 1 Honorable Eunice Lee, Presiding TBD, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113

DATE: June 18, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, call the Court at (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. Make sure to also let the other side know before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to contest the ruling, in accordance with California Rule of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) and Local Rule 8D.

**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**

LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS 9:00 A.M. LINE 1 24CV440449 Negar Ajayebi vs Motion to Compel Deposition; Production of Documents & Sanctions Mijia Jiang OFF CALENDAR. On June 16, 2026, moving party/Defendant Mijia Jiang withdrew her motion to compel Plaintiff Negar Ajayebi’s attendance at deposition and production of documents, and sanctions in the amount of $2,400.00 that was filed on December 18, 2026. The motion is unopposed. Per Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b) opposition papers were due on June 5, 2026.

A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion. (California Rule of Court Rule 8.54(c)). Failure to oppose a motion leads to the presumption that the defendant has no meritorious arguments. (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 489). Given the withdrawal of the motion and non-opposition, the motion is taken off calendar. LINE 2 24CV450235 Trisha Cardenas et Motion to Strike al vs Avalonbay Scroll down to Line 2 for Tentative Ruling.

Communities, Inc. et al. LINES 24CV452605 Adriana Guicho Motion to Strike (Line # 3) and Demurrer (Line # 4) 3-4 vs General Scroll down to Lines 3-4 for Tentative Ruling. Motors, LLC. LINE 5 25CV460390 Raymond Privette Petition to Compel Arbitration et al vs Ford OFF CALENDAR. On September 10, 2025, Defendant Future Ford Motor Company Lincoln of Roseville filed this motion to compel arbitration. On June 5, et al 2026, Plaintiffs Raymond and Judy Privette filed a request for dismissal of defendant Future Ford Lincoln of Roseville.

Thus, this motion is rendered moot. LINE 6 25CV480225 Halo Petition to Compel Arbitration Microelectronics Scroll down to Line 6 for Tentative Ruling. Co., Ltd. et al vs Darson Zhang

9:00 A.M. Calendar Lines # 2 Case Name Trisha Cardenas et al vs Avalonbay Communities, Inc. et al. Case No. 24CV450235 Motion to Strike

I. BACKGROUND On September 9, 2025, Defendants Avalonbay Communities, Inc. et al., filed a motion to strike a portions, punitive damages, of Plaintiff Trisha Cardenas’ First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Defendants aver that the plaintiff fails to plead specific facts alleging “oppression, fraud, or malice” required to support an award of punitive damages under Civil Code section 3294(a). The motion was accompanied by a proof of service indicating electronic service on the same day.

Plaintiff filed its FAC on August 8, 2025. Defendants seeks to strike the punitive and exemplary damages portions alleged on page 12 of the plaintiff’s FAC under ¶ 2 (approximately line numbers 21-22) that allege: “For punitive and exemplary damages against all named and DOE Defendants in the statutorily prescribed amounts or amounts to be proved at trial.”

The motion is unopposed. Per Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b) opposition papers were due on June 5, 2026. A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion. (California Rule of Court Rule 8.54(c); Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410). Failure to oppose a motion leads to the presumption that the plaintiff has no meritorious arguments. (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 489).

II. LEGAL STANDARD Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 436, subdivision (a), the court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. The court may also strike 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 of Civ. Proc., § 436(b)). The grounds for a motion to strike are that the pleading has irrelevant, false or improper matter, or has not been drawn or filed in conformity with laws. (Code of Civ.

Proc., § 436). The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 437). In ruling on a motion to strike, the court must assume the truth of the properly pleaded facts in the complaint or other pleading. (Turman v. Turning Point of Central California, Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63). “When the defect which justifies striking a complaint is capable of cure, the court should allow leave to amend.” (Vaccaro v. Kaiman (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 761, 768).

III. ANALYSIS Defendant meets its burden. Further, no opposition papers were filed. A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion. (California Rule of Court Rule 8.54(c); Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410). Failure to oppose a motion leads to the presumption that the plaintiff has no meritorious arguments. (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 489).

IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, and the motion being unopposed, the Court GRANTS the motion to strike the punitive damages portion of the plaintiff’s FAC. Specifically, punitive and exemplary damages portions alleged on page 12 of the plaintiff’s FAC under ¶ 2 (approximately line numbers 21-22) that allege: “For punitive and exemplary damages against all named and DOE Defendants in the statutorily prescribed amounts or amounts to be proved at trial.” The Court will prepare the Order. 5