LINDER vs DALTON, et al.

24CV005410: LINDER vs DALTON, et al. 04/21/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication in Department 16C

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE: The Sacramento Superior Court is transitioning operations from the Gordon D. Schaber and Hall of Justice buildings to the new Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse through a phased move plan beginning on April 13, 2026. Visit the court’s website at www.saccourt.ca.gov for the most current and up to date information regarding the transition. The physical and mailing address of the new downtown courthouse is:

Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse 500 G Street Sacramento, CA 95814

Please take notice, effective April 13, 2026, Department 54 has moved to Department 16C at the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse. The Honorable Christopher E. Krueger remains presiding over all Home Court proceedings, including Case Management and Law & Motion. All hearings currently scheduled or reserved after the effective date shall remain in place and will be heard in Department 16C.

Hon. Christopher E. Krueger Department 16C 916-874-7848

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Ambrose Dalton’s (“Defendant”) motion for summary adjudication of plaintiff in pro per Donald Linder’s (“Plaintiff”) claim for punitive damages is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED.

This action arises from an automobile-versus-bicycle accident that occurred on March 21, 2022, in Citrus Heights, California. Plaintiff filed this action on March 20, 2024, alleging causes of action for motor vehicle and negligence per se, and seeking punitive damages.

Defendant moves for summary adjudication of the claim for punitive damages on the ground that there is no evidence of willful misconduct, fraud, or other action by Defendant that would give rise to punitive damages.

Request for Judicial Notice

24CV005410: LINDER vs DALTON, et al. 04/21/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication in Department 16C

Defendant’s request for judicial notice of the Complaint and Answer filed in this action is granted. By taking judicial notice of these documents, the Court accepts their existence, not the truth of their contents. (See Professional Engineers v. Dep’t of Transp. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 543, 590 [judicial notice of findings of fact does not mean that those findings of fact are true]; Steed v. Department of Consumer Affairs (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 112, 120-121 [“[W]hile the existence of any document in a court file may be judicially noticed, the truth of the matters asserted in those documents, including the factual findings of the judge who was sitting as the trier of fact, is not entitled to notice.”].)

Legal Standard

In evaluating a motion for summary adjudication, the Court engages in a three-step process. First, the Court identifies the issues framed by the pleadings. The pleadings define the scope of the issues on a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication. (FPI Dev. Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381-382.) Because a motion for summary adjudication is limited to the issues raised by the pleadings (Lewis v. Chevron (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 690, 694), all evidence submitted in support of or in opposition to the motion must be addressed to the claims and defenses raised in the pleadings.

The Court cannot consider an unpleaded issue in ruling on a motion for summary adjudication. (Roth v. Rhodes (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 530, 541.) The papers filed in response to a defendant's motion for summary adjudication may not create issues outside the pleadings and are not a substitute for an amendment to the pleadings. (Tsemetzin v. Coast Federal Savings & Loan Assn. (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1334, 1342.)

Next, the Court must determine whether the moving party has met its burden. A defendant moving for summary adjudication bears the burden of persuasion that one or more elements of the plaintiff’s claim cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850, quoting Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(2).) To meet this burden, the defendant is only required to show that the plaintiff cannot prove an element of its claim, i.e., that the plaintiff does not possess and cannot reasonably obtain evidence necessary to show this element. (Aguilar, supra, at 853-855.) Further, the initial burden requires a showing that the plaintiff “could not prevail on any theory raised by the pleadings.” (Hawkins v. Wilton (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 936, 939-940.)

Once the moving party has met its burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party to show that a material factual issue exists as to the cause of action alleged or a defense to it. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p); see, generally, Bush v. Parents Without Partners (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 322, 326-327.) In ruling on the motion, the Court must consider the evidence and inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. (Aguilar, supra, at 843.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV005410: LINDER vs DALTON, et al. 04/21/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication in Department 16C

Summary adjudication requires disposition of an entire cause of action or claim for damages. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(f)(1); Hindin v. Rust (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1247, 1256.)

Discussion

Plaintiff alleges, “On 3/21/2024 I was riding my bicycle going northbound on San Juan Avenue on the west side. As I was approaching the intersection of San Juan Ave and Sperry Dr. the traffic light turned green (safe for pedestrians to cross) so I proceeded to enter the crosswalk, I looked to my left and saw your insured, AMBROSE DALTON quickly approaching the traffic light in his truck. I observed him looking to the left but never looked to the right and sped into the crosswalk, without stopping at the red traffic signal, striking my body with his truck.” (UMF 3.) The collision occurred as Defendant Ambrose Dalton executed a right-hand turn from eastbound Sperry Drive to southbound San Juan Avenue. (UMF 10.)

Plaintiff’s Complaint further alleges, “[Defendant] was not at the scene more than 2 minutes after stopping. I did notice that he was wearing a US Postal uniform. He knew that by giving me the name of his insurance company he could not be charged with hit and run. He made no effort to call [the] Police and wait at the scene because he knew he would be arrested or cited by [the] Police. It is quite obvious that he must have been impaired and because he was wearing a US Postal uniform he would have been fired from his job as well. If he had nothing to hide he would have called [the] Police and waited at the scene. Nobody really knows if he was under the influence or not because he left the scene immediately to avoid Police contact. He must have been speeding because if he wasn’t he would have seen me and stopped before hitting me with his truck.” (UMF 5.)

Defendant contends Plaintiff has no evidence that would support an award of punitive damages based on Plaintiff’s allegations and the evidence. In support, Defendant presents evidence that Plaintiff testified Defendant’s speed was not rapid and that he has no evidence to suggest Defendant was intoxicated on the date of the accident. (UMFs 8, 9.) Plaintiff only suspected Defendant was impaired “because of him driving the truck and looking me square in the eye as he hits [sic] me and keeps driving.” (UMF 9.)

However, the Defendant presents his declaration that, on the date of the collision, he was sober and not under the influence of alcohol or any other mind-altering substances. (UMF 11.) Defendant also notes that Plaintiff’s testimony that Defendant looked directly at him contradicts the allegations in the Complaint that Defendant was “looking to the left but never looked to the right and sped into the crosswalk, without stopping at the red traffic signal, sticking [sic] my body with his truck.” (UMF 3.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV005410: LINDER vs DALTON, et al. 04/21/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication in Department 16C

Defendant also declares that at the moment of impact, Defendant was going between three to five miles per hour. (UMF 12.) After the collision occurred, Defendant declares that he moved his vehicle to safety and offered to call the police. Plaintiff was adamant that police should not be contacted. (UMF 13.) Defendant also offered to transport Plaintiff to the hospital, but Plaintiff refused. (UMF 14.) Defendant provided his contact information to the Plaintiff and then left the scene. (UMF 15.)

Under Civil Code section 3294, punitive damages are recoverable only “where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.” (Civ. Code § 3294, subd. (a).) “Malice” under Civil Code §3294(c)(1) means conduct intended to injure the plaintiff or despicable conduct by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of others. Malice “based on a conscious disregard of the plaintiff’s rights, requires proof that the defendant’s conduct is ‘despicable’ and ‘willful.’” (Lackner v. North (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1188, 1211.) “‘[D]espicable’ connotes conduct that is ‘ so vile, base, contemptible, miserable, wretched or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people.’” (Id. [citations omitted].)

Here, Defendant’s evidence establishes that he was traveling at a slow rate of speed and was not intoxicated or under the influence at the time of the collision and, therefore, was not impaired or speeding as alleged by Plaintiff. The fact that an accident occurred is not in itself evidence of intentional behavior sufficient to maintain a claim of punitive damages. The Court finds Defendant has satisfied his initial burden to demonstrate there is no evidence of willful oppression, fraud, or malice by Defendant that would give rise to punitive damages. Thus, the burden shifts to Plaintiff to create a triable issue of material fact. Having failed to oppose the motion, Plaintiff has failed to meet that burden.

Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication is GRANTED.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, or further notice is required.

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV005410: LINDER vs DALTON, et al. 04/21/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication in Department 16C

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 To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID 16030877014. 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 in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/courtreporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf.

Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.pdf.

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