PINSON vs STINEMAN, et al.

25CV012710: PINSON vs STINEMAN, et al. 04/13/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses of Defendant in Department 8C

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard at 1:30 p.m. in Department 8C, located at the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse located at 500 G. Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Richard C. Miadich presiding.

Any party who wishes to contest the tentative ruling below must:

(1) request a hearing by calling the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the noticed hearing date, and leave a voicemail 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 they have notified the opposing party of their intention to appear; and

(2) advise the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the noticed hearing date, the tentative ruling will become the final order of the Court.

If a hearing is requested, the Court prefers in-person attendance by the parties. However, parties may appear by Zoom unless the Court specifically orders in-person attendance. Parties choosing to appear by Zoom are reminded, however, that a Zoom appearance is still a formal appearance before the Court. Parties appearing via Zoom should do so from a quiet location, free from undue distractions, and wear attire suitable for an in-person court appearance.

The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link:

https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16039062174

SIP Address:

16039062174@sip.zoomgov.com

(833) 568-8864

25CV012710: PINSON vs STINEMAN, et al. 04/13/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses of Defendant in Department 8C

ID: 16039062174

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 in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.Pdf

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 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 be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

***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 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C 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****

Plaintiff Larry Ray Pinson’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to strike affirmative defenses of Defendant Cortney Anne Stineman is ruled upon as follows.

Plaintiff moves the Court, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 436(a) and (b), for an order striking the following affirmative defenses asserted by Defendant Courtney Anne Stineman in her Answer on file:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV012710: PINSON vs STINEMAN, et al. 04/13/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses of Defendant in Department 8C

1. Comparative Fault (including fault assigned to Plaintiff and co- defendant Corey Nelsen) 2. Indemnity (complete or partial) 3. Superseding or Intervening Cause 4. Apportionment of Fault 5. Proposition 213 / Civil Code § 3333 6. Failure to Mitigate 7. Any and all affirmative defenses that assert or imply liability on the part of co-defendant Corey Nelsen

This motion is made on the following grounds:

1. These defenses are factually and legally insufficient; 2. They are contradicted by Defendant’s own conduct, including her insurer’s settlement with co-defendant Corey Nelsen and her request that Nelsen release her from liability; 3. Defendant’s verified discovery responses admit that she has no witnesses, documents, or admissible evidence to support the defenses; 4. The defenses are devoid of any good faith factual basis and are asserted solely for improper purposes, including blame-shifting inconsistent with the release she obtained from Nelsen; and 5. Defendant has opened the door to impeachment by falsely denying the settlement occurred.

(Notice, 2:4-23.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 436 provides, “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.”

The use of the motion to strike should be cautious and sparing and should not be considered a procedural “line item veto.” (PH II, Inc. v. Superior Court (Ibershof) (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th at 1683.) To be sure, in ruling on a motion to strike, the court must read allegations of the subject pleading as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth. (See, e.g., Courtesy Ambulance Service v. Superior Court (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1504, 1519; Dawes v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 82, 91.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV012710: PINSON vs STINEMAN, et al. 04/13/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses of Defendant in Department 8C

Though Plaintiff makes arguments about the merits of the issues of the case and also disputes the merits of the affirmative defenses, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not met his burden to show that any of Defendant Stineman’s affirmative defenses are “irrelevant, false, or improper matter asserted in a pleading” nor that any affirmative defense is not drawn or filed in conformity with the law.

Plaintiff does not support his arguments with legal authority that support his conclusions as to the motion to strike. “It is axiomatic that cases are not authority for propositions not considered.” (People v. Gilbert (1969) 1 Cal.3d 475, 482, n. 7.)

Although the Court declines to address each of Plaintiff’s various arguments, the Court does note that settlement discussions and papers do not and cannot be used to prove liability. (Evidence Code § 1152.) Any arguments relying of Defendant’s purported settlement of claims are without merit.

Plaintiff also essentially argues that the affirmative defenses fail to state facts sufficient to state an affirmative defense, but that is no basis to strike an entire affirmative defense. The purpose of a motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 436(a) on the basis that matter is irrelevant, false, or improper is “to authorize the excision of superfluous or abusive allegations.” (Quiroz v. Seventh Ave. Center (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1256, 1281.) To that end, “matter that is essential to a cause of action should not be struck and it is error to do so.' (Id.) Plaintiff may disagree with the merits of the affirmative defenses, but that does not render it subject to a motion to strike.

Plaintiff’s motion to strike affirmative defenses is DENIED in its entirety.

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