Parrish Scarbrough, Melissa v. Lally, Kulwinder et al

Civil Code §3294. “Not only must there be circumstances of oppression, fraud or malice, but facts must be alleged in the pleading to support such a claim.” Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d. 159, 166.

Here, the Court finds that there are insufficient allegations of oppression, fraud, or malice and therefore the claim for punitive damages is inappropriate. Additionally, as to the allegations of corporate ratification, the Court likewise finds those allegations lacking and the Motion to Strike is granted in its entirety. Leave to amend is granted. Any amended Complaint is to be filed and served within 20 days’ notice of this order. The Court will utilize the form of order submitted by Defendant with modification to Paragraph 4 to indicate that leave to amend is granted.

4-6. 23CV02667 PARRISH SCARBROUGH, MELISSA V. LALLY, KULWINDER ET AL EVENTS: (1) Plaintiff Melissa Parrish Scarbrough’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant Harry Hawinder and Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $2,146.00 Against Defendant Harry Hawinder and his Counsel, and evidence, Issue and Terminating Sanctions (2) Plaintiff Melissa Parrish Scarbrough’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant Kuldeep Lally and Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $1,794.00 Against Defendant Kuldeep Lally and his Counsel, and evidence, Issue and Terminating Sanctions (3) Plaintiff Melissa Parrish Scarbrough’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant Kulwinder Lally and Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $1,794.00 Against Defendant Kulwinder Lally and his Counsel, and evidence, Issue and Terminating Sanctions

As an initial matter, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §1005(b), any opposition to the pending motions were to be filed and served no later than June 17, 2026 [9 Court days before the hearing]. Here, Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Depositions and Request for Monetary, Issue, Evidence, and Terminating Sanctions was not filed and served until June 24, 2026. There is no explanation as to why the Opposition was filed untimely and the Court has declined to consider the arguments therein.

The Court finds that there has now been a showing of ongoing and willful disobedience of this Court's discovery orders and blatant and ongoing abuse of the discovery process that rises to the level of discovery abuse to support terminating sanctions. See, Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. LcL Administrators, Inc. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1093