DEFENDANT DAKSH CHAPLOT’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF COMPLAINT
July 29, 2026, Law and Motion Calendar Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________ 2:00 PM - LINE 7 25-CIV-08668 WEI FANG CHEN, ET AL VS. DAKSH CHAPLOT, ET AL
WEI FANG CHEN ROBERT CHEASTY DAKSH CHAPLOT SHAYNE L. WULTERIN
DEFENDANT DAKSH CHAPLOT’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF COMPLAINT
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant Daksh Chaplot’s Motion to Strike Portions of the Complaint is DENIED.
Defendant moves to strike only page 3, ¶ 14(a)(2), that reads “punitive damages.” (Defendant’s Notice of Motion, at p. 2.) However, the Complaint contains an Exemplary Damages Attachment that sets forth the allegations in support of Plaintiffs’ punitive damages. (Complaint, at p. 6.)
“A notice of motion to strike a portion of a pleading must quote in full the portions sought to be stricken except where the motion is to strike an entire paragraph, cause of action, count, or defense. Specifications in a notice must be numbered consecutively.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1322(a).) Further, if a pleading is challenged, a motion must state the specific portion challenged. (Id., rule 3.1112(d)(4).) Thus, the court finds no point to striking the prayer for punitive damages at page 3 of the Complaint when the Exemplary Damages Attachment remains part of the Complaint. Defendant seems to concede this procedural defect by improperly asking in reply that the allegations in the Exemplary Damages Attachment also be stricken. (Defendant’s Reply, at p. 11.) Because defendant did not include such a request in defendant’s Notice, it is not properly before the court.
In addition, defendant’s Memorandum fails to analyze the Complaint’s allegations against defendant in support of the punitive damages claim. Instead, defendant’s Memorandum focuses solely on the allegations against another defendant, Hertz Vehicles LLC. (See Defendant’s Memorandum, at p. 5:1-4.)
Defendant also moves in the alternative that the court order an amendment making clear that punitive damages are sought solely against the DOE security guard and not against defendant Chaplot. However, the Complaint does not contain any allegations regarding a security guard, and defendant fails to address this argument in defendant’s Memorandum.
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 is to file and serve an Answer to the Complaint within twenty (20) days of service of written notice of entry of the formal order by plaintiffs.
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, plaintiffs’ counsel shall prepare a written order consistent with the court’s ruling for the court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312 and Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv), and
July 29, 2026, Law and Motion Calendar Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________ provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in this action. The order should be e-filed only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the court.