Motion to Strike Punitive Damages
34-2022-00318084-CU-BC-GDS: Bryan Finkel vs. General Motors, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company 08/13/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Punitive Damages from Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 16D
Tentative Ruling
NOTICE:
Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:
To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.
Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.
The Department 16D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16146506749 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.
Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-services-transcripts. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.
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?”
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 Courts Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.
34-2022-00318084-CU-BC-GDS: Bryan Finkel vs. General Motors, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company 08/13/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Punitive Damages from Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 16D
Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver 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 Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant General Motors, LLCs (Defendant) motion to strike punitive damages from Plaintiff Bryan Finkels Complaint is denied.
Defendant principally argues that the Fifth Cause of Action for fraud cannot support punitive damages because the fraud claim is insufficiently pled. However, on July 23, 2026, this Court denied Defendants related motion for judgment on the pleadings and concluded that the fraud claim was sufficiently pled. Despite being advised of the Courts ruling on July 23, 2026, Defendant filed a reply brief on August 6, 2026, arguing that Plaintiffs punitive damage prayer for relief should be stricken because (1) Plaintiff has insufficiently pleaded his fraud cause of action. . . . (Reply at 1:21-22.)
Defendants argument ignores this Courts July 23, 2026 order. For the same reasons that the Court denied the motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to the pleading sufficiency of the fraud cause of action, the instant motion to strike punitive damages related to the alleged fraud also must be denied. (See, e.g., Johnson v. Ford Motor Co. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1191.) Fraud is a cause of action that provides a basis for punitive damages. (Civ. Code § 3294.) To the extent Defendant attempts to further argue that Plaintiff has failed to allege facts supporting malice, oppression or fraud within the meaning of Civil Code section 3294, the Court disagrees and finds Plaintiffs allegations to be sufficient.
The motion to strike is denied.
This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.