WARD, ET AL. VS. LEVINDOFSKE, ET AL.

CASE NUMBER: 25CV-0207586 Tentative Ruling on Motion to Strike: Defendants Sierra Pacific Industries, Inc. and Austin Michael Levindofske move to strike portions of the First Amended Complaint (FAC) relating to Plaintiff’s allegations in support of punitive and exemplary damages in paragraphs 2, 33-35, 36, as well as the associated prayer for relief.

Timeliness of Motion: Plaintiffs object that the motion is untimely. Defendants’ deadline to file a responsive pleading to the FAC was June 15, 2026. On that date, Defendants filed a Declaration of Stephen Heath invoking the 30-day extension available under CCP 435.5(a)(2) when a party attempted, but failed, to meet and confer prior to filing a motion to strike. The Heath Declaration admits that no meet and confer occurred prior to filing. Plaintiff argues that this Motion should be denied or stricken on this basis. The Court declines to strike the Motion on the grounds of untimeliness in the interest of adjudicating the matter on the merits. Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the Court’s consideration of the Motion in this instance as detailed below.

Meet and Confer: Before filing a motion to strike, a party is required to meet and confer in person or on the telephone. CCP § 435.5(a). A motion to strike shall be supported by a declaration stating either that the parties met and conferred or that they were unable to meet and confer. CCP § 435.5(a)(3). The Declaration of Charles Shartle indicates that Defendant did not satisfy the meet and confer requirement prior to filing this motion. CCP 435.5(a)(4) provides that an insufficient meet and confer process shall not be grounds to grant or deny a motion to strike. Therefore, the Court elects to reach the merits as it will not prejudice Plaintiff in this instance, rather than continuing the hearing to require meet and confer.

Requests for Judicial Notice: Plaintiff requests the Court take judicial notice of the Complaint, the First Amended Complaint, and the Declaration of Stephen Heath to extend responsive pleading to the FAC. The requests are granted.

Merits: A motion to strike reaches only "irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading" or matter "not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state." (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.) As with a demurrer, the court's review is limited to the face of the challenged pleading and matters subject to judicial notice; the allegations of the complaint are accepted as true, and extrinsic evidence offered by either side to create or resolve factual disputes is not properly considered on this motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437(a).

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint alleges a single cause of action for Loss of Consortium. Plaintiff Jeff Ward brings the action as a result of injuries sustained by his wife Amarie Ward in an auto accident. Amarie Ward has resolved her claims against Defendants. Defendant moves to strike portions of Plaintiffs’ FAC which alleges grounds for punitive and exemplary damages as well as the prayer for relief regarding same. Defendant argues that the allegations do not meet the legal threshold required and should therefore be stricken.

Civil Code 3294(b) provides an employer is liable for punitive damages when they have advance knowledge of the unfitness of the employee, and employed him or her with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others or authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct for which the damages are awarded. See also College Hospital Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal. 4th 704.

Here, the FAC alleges both advance knowledge and later ratification of the wrongful conduct. The FAC alleges that SPI had advance knowledge of Levindofske’s unfitness and employed him with conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others, and that through the exercise of reasonable care in hiring, screening, retention, training and supervisory processes, SPI knew or should have known that Levindofske was unfit or incompetent to safely operate a commercial tractor-trailer. (FAC ¶ 35)

The FAC alleges Levindofske was under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the collision and was on the phone with his girlfriend while speeding through a construction zone at the time of the accident. (FAC ¶ 32) The FAC further alleges that SPI ratified this conduct by failing to follow their policies and procedures requiring drug and alcohol testing of any employee-driver involved in a work-related collision within 24 hours of the collision. (FAC ¶ 34) The FAC alleges that SPI’s managing agents deliberately failed and refused to test Levindofske and demonstrates conscious disregard for the rights and safety of Plaintiffs and the general public. (FAC ¶ 34) 21

The Court finds that these allegations are sufficient to state a claim for punitive damages. Defendants’ Motion to Strike is DENIED. The proposed order will be modified.

****************************************************************************************** 9:00 a.m. – Review Hearings ****************************************************************************************** ALLEN VS. SHRANER, ET AL.