Leticia Reyes Parral vs Sandridge LLP et al

IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the plaintiff’s motion for permanent injunction is DENIED without prejudice as premature on the grounds that there is no final judgment. The Preliminary Injunction executed by Judge Williams on September 9, 2024 remains in effect until a final determination of the merits of the claims at issue are adjudicated.

The plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment is rendered MOOT as noted above based on the September 30, 2025 Court Order authorized by Judge Shella Deen granting the motion to vacate the default judgment.

The Court will prepare the formal Order.

Calendar Lines # 4 Case Name Leticia Reyes Parral vs Sandridge LLP et al Case No. 24 CV451675

Motion for Leave to File Before the court is Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint to add punitive damages against defendant Coe Orchard Equipment, Inc. Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308, the court issues its tentative ruling as follows.

I. BACKGROUND On October 12, 2023, decedent Ofelio Castro Reyes, Jr. (“Decedent”) was in the course and scope of his employment with Kings FLC, a subcontractor hired, supervised and controlled by defendant Sandridge Partners L.P. (“Sandridge”) to perform farming and harvesting work at defendant Sandridge’s property located at Utica Avenue and 25th Street in Kettleman City, California (“Premises”). (Complaint, ¶¶3 and 14).

Decedent was operating a B8 R-Series Reservoir Cart (“Cart”) to harvest pistachios when he was crushed to death by the screw conveyor in the equipment. (Complaint, ¶¶14 – 15). Defendant Coe Orchard Equipment, Inc. (“COE”) is the designer, manufacturer, distributor, lessor and/or seller of the Cart. (Complaint, ¶¶4, 9, 12, and 15).

On November 13, 2024, plaintiffs Leticia Reyes Parral (“Parral”), individually and as successor-in-interest and personal representative of Decedent’s estate, and Ofelio Castro Reyes, Sr., filed a complaint against defendants Sandridge and COE asserting causes of action for: (1) Premises Liability [against defendant Sandridge] (2) General Negligence [against defendant Sandridge] (3) Strict Products Liability—Design Defect (4) Strict Products Liability—Manufacturing Defect (5) Strict Products Liability—Failure to Warn (6) Products Liability—Negligence (7) Products Liability—Negligence—Failure to Warn

(8) Wrongful Death—Survival Action CCP 337.30

On January 3, 2025, defendant Sandridge filed an answer to plaintiffs’ complaint.

On February 13, 2025, defendant COE filed an answer to plaintiffs’ complaint.

On April 6, 2026, plaintiffs filed the motion now before the court, a motion for leave to amend the complaint to add punitive damages against defendant COE [and to correct the name of plaintiff Ofelio Castro Reyes, Sr. to Ofeli o Castro Rivera].

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1): The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code. (Code Civ. Proc., §473, subd. (a)(1)).

“Leave to amend is liberally allowed.” (Bettencourt v. Hennessy Industries, Inc. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1103, 1111). “If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion. ” (Morgan v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530). “Of course, if the proposed amendment fails to state a cause of action, it is proper to deny leave to amend.” (Foxborough v. Van Atta (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 217, 230).

III. ANALYSIS

A. CORRECTION OF PLAINTIFF’S NAME - OFELIO CASTRO REYES, SR. TO OFELIO CASTRO RIVERA There is no opposition to plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend the complaint to correct the name of plaintiff Ofelio Castro Reyes, Sr. to Ofelio Castro Rivera.

B. MOVING ADD CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST DEFENDANT COE In G.D. Searle & Co. v. Superior Court (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 22, 26 (Searle), the court wrote, “In California the award of damages by way of example or punishment is controlled by Civil Code section 3294, which authorizes that kind of award against a tortfeasor who has been guilty of ‘oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied.’” “‘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.” (Civil Code §3294, subd. (c)(1); emphasis added).

To plead a “willful and conscious disregard of the rights of others,” a plaintiff need only allege, “that the defendant was aware of the probable dangerous consequences of his conduct, and that he willfully and deliberately failed to avoid those consequenc es.” (Lackner v. North (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1188, 1211 (Lackner)). However, this alternative definition of malice also requires that the conduct be despicable. “‘Despicable conduct’ has been described

as conduct which is so vile, base, contemptible, miserable, wretched or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people. [Citation]. Such conduct has been described as ‘[having] the character of outrage frequently associated with crime.’” (American Airlines, Inc. v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1017, 1050). “[I]n cases involving conduct performed without intent to harm, a finding of ‘malice’ for punitives purposes requires proof by clear and convincing evidence that defendant’s tortious wrong amounted to ‘despicable conduct’ and that such despicable conduct was carried on with a ‘willful and conscious disregard’ of the rights or safety of others.” (See College Hospital, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704 (College Hospital)).

Defendant COE contends the proposed amendment does not allege facts sufficient to support a claim for punitive damages because the factual basis for plaintiffs’ allegation that defendant COE was aware of the probable dangerous consequences of its conduct are two lawsuits filed by different plaintiffs involving allegations of death/ injury arising from equipment manufactured by COE. Defendant COE argues that even if these prior lawsuits placed it on noti ce that allegations have been made, they are only unproven allegations.

Regardless of whether the allegations made in the other prior lawsuits are ultimately proven true or not, plaintiffs’ allegation that defendant COE was aware of these prior lawsuits and the allegations contained therein is sufficient to allege here in this action that defendant COE was aware of the probable dangerous consequences of not including a guard mechanism. The proposed amended pleading also alleges a willful and deliberate failure to avoid such consequences. (See ¶¶21 – 22 of the proposed amended pleading). Although there are some decisions in which the court determined conduct was not despisable as a matter of law following the submission of evidence (see Lackner, supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at p. 1213), the court declines to make such a determination based solely upon a pleading or, in this instance, a proposed pleading.

Defendant COE makes no other argument concerning prejudice from the proposed amended pleading.

IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall file the proposed First Amended Complaint within twenty (20) days of this Order. The Court will prepare the Order.

Calendar Lines # 5 Case Name UHG I LLC vs Travis Fong Case No. 25CV463382

Motion for Order to Deem Admissions Admitted

I. BACKGROUND Before the court is Plaintiff UHG I LLC (“UHG”) motion for requests for admissions (“RFA”) to be deemed admitted against Defendant Travis Fong that was filed on October 20, 2025. No proof of service of the motion to the defendant was submitted.

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b) opposition papers were due on June 30, 2026. 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).