Motion to vacate the order dismissing petition
1. Demurrer This matter is on calendar for the demurrer of defendant United Financial Casualty Company (“United”) to the first amended complaint filed by Plaintiff Kathryn Rottmann (“Plaintiff”). On February 27, 2026, Plaintiff dismissed United from this action. Accordingly, the demurrer is taken off calendar as MOOT.
2. Motion to Strike Defendant Joseph Svedise (“Defendant”) moves to strike all references to Punitive Damages in the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) filed by Plaintiff Kathryn Rottmann (“Plaintiff”). The FAC arises out of an automobile accident between Plaintiff and Defendant. Plaintiff alleges Defendant executed an illegal turn when the traffic signal and roadway conditions did not permit for them. After the illegal turn, Defendant made a U-turn in active traffic causing Plaintiff’s vehicle to collide with Defendant’s vehicle. The FAC further alleges Defendant made “conflicting statements” to law enforcement and his insurer about how the collision occurred.
“In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.” (Civ. Code, § 3294(a).)
“Malice” means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others. (Civ. Code §3294(c)(1).)
“Oppression” means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights. (Civ. Code §3294(c)(2).)
“Fraud” means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury. (Civ. Code §3294
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Defendant argues that the FAC does not allege any relevant facts that support Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages. He argues that the allegations only support a negligence cause of action. While Defendant cites numerous cases for general statements about punitive damages, he cites no cases which show, as a matter of law, that the allegations in the FAC are insufficient to support punitive damages.
The FAC describes Defendant’s driving in a manner that could be said to constitute a willful and conscious disregard for the rights or safety of others. Plaintiff alleges Defendant willfully made an unauthorized right-hand turn followed by a U-turn in active traffic disregarding the potential serious consequences of those actions. He further allegedly attempted to mitigate his responsibility for the collision by misrepresenting the cause of the action to law enforcement and his automobile insurer. Defendant has not shown these allegations are insufficient to support an award of punitive damages. The motion is DENIED. Plaintiff is directed to submit a written order to the court consistent with this ruling and in compliance with Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312.
6. 26CV00208, Petition for Starfinder Stanley, Audrey Stanley
This matter is on calendar for the motion of Petitioners Starfinder Stanley and Audrey Rose Stanley (“Petitioners”) to vacate the order dismissing their petition for a name change of their daughter Juniper Eve Stanley to Juniper Eveningstar Stanley (“the Petition”). 7
The Petition was filed on January 21, 2026. The hearing on the Petition was set for March 11, 2026. The tentative ruling published on March 10, 2026, required appearances. When Petitioners failed to appear, the Petition was denied without prejudice both for failure to appear and to file proof of publication.
On March 18, 2026, Petitioners filed proof of publication showing notice of the Petition was published in the Petaluma Argus-Courier on four dates in January and February 2026. On April 21, 2026, Petitioners filed this motion explaining the reasons for their failure to appear and to file proof of publication in time for the hearing on this motion. Had proof of publication been timely filed for the March 11, 2026, hearing on the Petition, it would have been granted. This court finds Petitioners’ reason for their failure to appear and to timely file proof of publication satisfactory. Therefore, the motion is GRANTED and the Petition in hereby granted. Petitioners are directed to submit a written order to the court consistent with this ruling granting this motion in addition to submitting an order granting the Petition.
7. SCV-273938, Din v. Thuesen
This matter is on calendar for the motion of Kenneth E. Bacon, Mastagni Holstedt, A.P.C., to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Adnan Din (“Plaintiff”). The hearing on this motion was originally set to be heard on September 23, 2026. As trial is currently set for October 9, 2026, Mr. Bacon’s ex parte application to advance the hearing was granted. Notice of entry of order on the ex parte application advancing the hearing was emailed to Plaintiff on May 5, 2026. Proof of service of the order showing service by mail has not been filed.
The mandatory electronic service requirements apply only to persons represented by counsel. (CCP § 1010.6(b)(1).) Although they cannot be required to accept electronic service, unrepresented persons may consent to receive electronic service by either serving a notice on all parties and filing the notice with the court, or manifesting affirmative consent through electronic means with the court and providing the person's electronic address with the consent for the purpose of receiving electronic service. (CCP § 1010.6(c)(1)–(3); Cal Rules of Ct 2.251(b).)
Here, while technically still represented, Mr. Bacon seeks to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff. Thus, Plaintiff is treated as unrepresented for the purpose of receiving notice of this motion. Absent an affirmative showing that Plaintiff has agreed to accept service by email, proof of service solely by email of the ex parte order advancing the hearing is insufficient. The hearing on this motion is CONTINUED to July 15, 2026, at 3:00 p.m., in Department 16, to allow Mr. Bacon to provide proof of service of the new hearing date, by mail, on the Plaintiff.
8