Motion for leave to amend; Motion for judgment on the pleadings
# Case Name Tentative
A claim for punitive damages must be supported by specific factual allegations. The mere conclusory characterization of a defendant’s conduct as “intentional, willful and fraudulent is a patently insufficient statement of ‘oppression, fraud, or malice, express or implied, within the meaning of Civil Code section 3294.’” (Brousseau v. Jarrett (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 864, 872.)
Claims for punitive damages “must include specific factual allegations showing that defendant's conduct was oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious ... [p]unitive damages may not be pleaded generally.” (Today's IV, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 1137, 1193.)
Here, the FACC only asserts conclusory labels to support the claim for punitive damages. Cross-Complainant shall include specific facts that justify a claim for punitive damages if it elects to file a Second Amended Cross-Complaint.
Cross-Defendant shall provide notice of this ruling.
58. The People Defendant Experian Data Corp.’s motion to bifurcate issues at of the State trial is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 597, 598, 1048, subd. of California (b).) v. Experian Moving party has not presented sufficient evidence, as Data Corp. opposed to argument, showing that trying its statute of 2019- limitations defense first, will further convenience, avoid 01047183 prejudice, or be conducive to expedition and economy. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 597, 598, 1048, subd. (b); see also Gilman v. Dalby (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 923, 940 [“statements in motions are not evidence”].)
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?”
Plaintiff shall give notice of this ruling.
59.
60. Zamarron v. Motion for Leave to Amend State of California Plaintiffs Esmeralda Zamarron and Alejandro Flores Jr.’s motion for leave to file first amended complaint is GRANTED. 2023- (See Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1); Atkinson v. Elk 01369253 Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761; Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048; accord, S.C. v. Doe 1 (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 365, 383.)
Plaintiffs are ORDERED to separately file the proposed first amended complaint (Navarro Decl. at Ex. A) within two court
# Case Name Tentative
days. The first amended complaint must be filed as a separate document to ensure it is properly indexed in the record.
The first amended complaint is DEEMED SERVED on defendants State of California, American Civil Constructors West Coast LLC, and Alfaro Communications Construction Inc. as of the date of this hearing.
Defendants’ response to the first amended complaint is due within 20 days of this order.
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
Defendant State of California’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED AS MOOT, in light of the ruling on the motion for leave to amend above.
The court sets an order to show cause for October 23, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department C28 to address why plaintiffs have not served any other named defendant. Unless plaintiff appears and shows good cause, the court will dismiss without prejudice any unserved named defendant in the first amended complaint.
Plaintiffs shall give notice of all of the above. 61.
62.
63.
64.
65.