SILVA vs FRANKENSTEIN MOTORS, INC., et al.

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

23CV007918: SILVA vs FRANKENSTEIN MOTORS, INC., et al. 04/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Portions of plf's First Amended Complaint in Department 16D

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.

*** NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION. PARTIES MAY CONTINUE TO APPEAR REMOTELY IN DEPARTMENT 16D UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED OTHERWISE. ***

TENTATIVE RULING: Defendants Frankenstein Motors, Inc.’s (“Frankenstein”) and Bruce McClaskey’s (McClaskey”) motion to strike portions of Plaintiff Kelly Silva’s first amended complaint (“FAC”) is granted, in part, and denied, in part, as set forth below.

The pertinent allegations in the FAC were set forth in the Court’s ruling on Defendants’ demurrer, are hereby incorporated by reference, and need not be set forth again.

Defendants move to strike punitive damages in addition to various allegations regarding Defendants’ use of social media to promote their business. As explained below, the motion is granted as to the punitive damages and denied as to the remainder of the allegations sought to be stricken.

A motion to strike is appropriate to strike out any irrelevant, false or improper matter asserted in any pleading and the Court may strike out all or any party of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the law. (See Code Civ. Pro. § 436 (a)-(c).) A motion to strike challenges portions of a cause of action that are substantively defective on the face of the complaint. (PH II, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1682-83; see also Code of Civ. Proc. § 437.) More specifically, a motion to strike should be granted to remove 'any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading,' or where the pleadings are drawn in violation of a law, rule or court order. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 436.) Examples of 'improper' matters include allegations which are 'at variance with the contract.' (California Sugar & White Pine Agency v. Penoyar (1914) 167 Cal. 274, 279.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV007918: SILVA vs FRANKENSTEIN MOTORS, INC., et al. 04/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Portions of plf's First Amended Complaint in Department 16D

“The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading, (b) Strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.” (Code Civ. Proc, § 436.) A motion to strike is limited to the face of the challenged pleading or any matter of which the Court may take judicial notice. (CCP § 437(a).) The use of the motion to strike should be cautious and sparing. It should not be a procedural 'line item veto'. (PH II, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal. App. 4th 1680, 1683.)

Punitive Damages

In order to plead an entitlement to punitive damages a plaintiff must allege that the defendant is guilty of “oppression, fraud, or malice.” (Civil Code §3294(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].)

Despicable conduct includes “that which is in blatant violation of law or policy.” (American Airlines, Inc. v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter, & Hampton (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1017, 1050.) Indeed, “[e]ven ‘nonintentional torts’ may form the basis for punitive damages when the conduct constitutes conscious disregard of the rights or safety of other. [citation omitted] ‘Nonintentional conduct comes within the definition of malicious acts punishable by the assessment of punitive damages when a party intentionally performs an act from which he knows, or should know, it is highly probable harm will result.’ [citation omitted].” (Skf Farms v.

Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 907.)

Defendants argue that the FAC fails to allege facts showing that Defendants engaged in any oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious conduct. The Court agrees. To that end, at most, the FAC contains allegations regarding Defendants’ negligence in allowing Teagarden to drive the Truck involved in the subject collision. However, as currently pled, there are no facts which would constitute conduct which would allow for the imposition of punitive damages. Plaintiff essentially recognizes the deficiency as the opposition indicates that Plaintiff has discovered additional facts since the FAC was filed which would demonstrate Defendants’ knowledge of dangers presented by a shifter in the Truck, that these dangers could result in the type of accident that occurred and that Teagarden was a driver who needed warnings for this type of danger. (Opp. 5:14-18.)

As a result, the motion to strike punitive damages is granted.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV007918: SILVA vs FRANKENSTEIN MOTORS, INC., et al. 04/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Portions of plf's First Amended Complaint in Department 16D

Additional Allegations

Defendants also move to strike allegations in the FAC related to their use of social media. Specifically, the FAC contains numerous allegations regarding Defendants posting videos regarding the Truck and other vehicles on Facebook. Defendants contend the allegations are irrelevant and have nothing to do with any of the claims in the FAC.

Plaintiff contends that the allegations are essential to the negligence claims because they show that Defendants were performing work on the Truck and how Teagarden was involved with marketing and had no knowledge of how to operate the Truck. “[M]atter that is essential to a cause of action should not be struck and it is error to do so.” (Quiroz v. Seventh Ave. Center (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1256, 1281.) At base, Defendants are simply taking issue with the allegations yet have failed to show that the subject allegations could not be used either to support the causes of action in the FAC or to provide relevant context.

In reality, Defendants appear to be doing nothing more than improperly seeking to use a motion to strike as a procedural “line item veto”. (PH II, Inc., supra, 33 Cal. App. 4th at 1683.) This is improper. The motion to strike directed to the allegations other than punitive damages allegations is denied.

In summary, the motion to strike is granted as to the punitive damages allegations but denied in all other respects.

Where the motion was granted, leave to amend is granted. “If the plaintiff has not had an opportunity to amend the complaint in response to the [motion to strike], leave to amend is liberally allowed as a matter of fairness, unless the complaint shows on its face that it is incapable of amendment.” (City of Stockton v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 730, 747.) Leave to amend is granted as this is Defendants’ first challenge to the complaint on which the Court has ruled and Plaintiff requested leave.

Where leave was granted, Plaintiff may file and serve an amended complaint no later than April 30, 2026. Defendants shall file and serve their response within 30 days thereafter, 35 days if the amended complaint is served by mail as modified by the CCP 430.41 extension if necessary.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Defendants’ counsel is ordered to notify Plaintiff’s counsel immediately of the tentative ruling system and to be available at the hearing in person, via Zoom or by telephone, in the event Plaintiff’s counsel appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV007918: SILVA vs FRANKENSTEIN MOTORS, INC., et al. 04/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Portions of plf's First Amended Complaint in Department 16D

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or other notice is required.