Maxamuud Jaamac vs. Johnathan Yandoc

LINE CASE NO. CASE TITLE TENTATIVE RULING 9:00 22CV408359 John Doe vs. The Plaintiff petitions this court to compel Defendant to submit to an independent 1 Harker School, et.al. medical examination. Defendant proposes six hour limitations, object to the administration of cognitive testing, and the administration of certain emotional function tests. The Defendant also opposes Plaitniff’s expert witness Dr Winkel’s expertise. Plaintiff placed his mental state at issue. Defendant’s expert witness ha the qualifications to render an expert opinion.

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.- 9:00 23CV428070 “Janine” Chun Lu vs. See below 2 Marc Goubert, et.al. 9:00 24CV436322 Exeter 1140-1150 Plaintiff moves this court to enter default judgment against Plaintiff and award 3 Ringwood LLC vs. Gru monetary damages. Plaintiff filed for motion of breach of contract. Defendant Energy Lab, Inc. never paid balance owed Plaintiff. Defendant never objected to this motion. Plaintiff’s motions is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s monetary sanctions in the amount of 580,128.47 is GRANTED. 9:00 24CV443183 Shenna Huynh vs Plaintiff moves this court for issue sanctions.

Plaintiff seeks these remedies from 4 Redis Labs, Inc. et.al. a violation of a May 14 2026 court order. This court ordered monetary sanctions of $10,320 against Defendant—it did deny Plaintiff’s terminating sanctions. This court continued argument regarding the issue of evidentiary sanctions. As indicated in its July 28, 2026 order, this court is concerned with Defendant’s response. But as indicated in its July 28, 2026 order, it does appear that Defendant is attempting to respond to voluminous discovery requests albeit late.

This court finds that discovery has not been completed. This court seeks input from both counsel as to when discovery can be completed. This court will DENY Plaintiff’s motion for evidentiary sanctions, but will leave the issue open to providing a new date of compliance for Defendant. 9:00 25CV47159 Shengsheng Guan vs. Defendant petitions this court to grant four motions to compel. Plaintiff failed to 5-8 Tong Liu answer any of the interrogatories propounded by the Defendant because it was above the required legal limit of thirty five requests.

Defendant agreed and limited the amount to twenty-four requests. Plaintiff has articulated that it is working on the twenty four requests, but the 30 day deadline has not passed yet. Defendant agrees. This court will continue this matter to sometime past the 30 day deadline. Court will seek input from counsel as to new date. 9:00 25CV462132 Eugene P. Silveria Off calendar 9 Trust of the Silveria Family Recoverable Living Trust Created 3/28/2008, et.al. vs. Mo Khan, et.al. 9:00 26CV485320 Maxamuud Jaamac See below 10 vs.

Johnathan Yandoc 9:01 21CV384369 Comerica Bank vs. Defendant motions this court for a claim of exemption from funds that have been 1 Stanley McIntyre, Inc. levied in his account. Defendant as judgment debtor has the burden of proving the funds being levied are exempt. Defendant submits that his monthly income is around $3,000 but his expenses run over $6,700. Defendant also has over $33,000 in his Chase bank account. Defendant omits revenues generated from his contracting business which was reported as a gross income of over $373,000.

Defendant fails to meet his burden. Defendant’s claim for exemption is DENIED.,

identified by the defendant can be cured by amendment.” (Gregory v. Albertson’s, Inc. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 845, 850, internal citations and quotation marks omitted.)

The court notes that this is the first time that it appears that an operative pleading filed by Lu has been subject to a pleading challenge. With this in mind, the court further notes that it is not convinced that there is “no reasonable possibility” Lu can amend the FAC to address issues identified above, particularly as to the third cause of action.

Calendar Line 10

Case Name: Jaamac v. Yandoc Case No.: 26CV485320

On January 26, 2026, plaintiff Maxamuud Jaamac (“Plaintiff”) filed a form complaint against defendant Johnathan Mark Yandoc (“Defendant”), asserting a single cause of action for motor vehicle negligence, and seeking punitive damages. Defendant moves to strike the allegations supporting punitive damages.

The Court agrees with Defendant that the complaint fails to allege facts supporting punitive damages. (See Jackson v. Johnson (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1354 (stating that “[s]imple negligence cannot support an award of punitive damages”); see also Johns-Manville Sales Corp. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd. (Horenberger) (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 923, 931 (stating that “[t]he malice in Civil Code section 3294 is defined as intent to vex, injure, or annoy, or as criminal indifference toward an obligation owed another... [m]ere negligence or recklessness will not suffice”); see also Palmer v. Ted Stevens Honda (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 530, 536 (stating that “[n]either evidence of mere negligence [citations] nor constructive fraud... will support a punitive damages award without a showing of the statutory fraud, malice, or

oppression”); see also Ebaugh v. Rabkin (1972) 22 Cal.App.3d 891, 894 (stating that “mere negligence, even gross negligence is not sufficient to justify an award of punitive damages”); see also Dawes v. Super. Ct. (Mardian) (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 82, 87 (stating that “the cases have uniformly recognized that proof of negligence, even gross negligence, or recklessness is insufficient to warrant an award of punitive damages”); see also Ford Motor Co. v. Home Ins. Co. (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 374, 380 (stating that “[i]n California, conduct is sufficiently culpable to warrant assessment of punitive damages only if it involves fraud, oppression or malice... [m]ere unintentional carelessness, characterized as negligence or recklessness, is not sufficient”); see also Krusi v.

Bear, Stearns & Co. (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 664, 679 (stating “mere negligence, which -- even if gross, or reckless -- cannot justify punitive damages”); see also Tresemer v. Barke (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 656, 668-669 (stating that “mere negligence, even gross negligence is not sufficient to justify an award of punitive damages... [t]he only form of malice contemplated by section 3294, which creates the right to exemplary damages, is malice in fact... [m]alice in fact denotes ill will, or desire to do harm for the mere satisfaction of doing it... [t]he central spirit of the exemplary damage statute, the demand for evil motive, is violated by an award founded upon recklessness alone”).)

Plaintiff cites to Ching (Yee) v. Dy Foon (1956) 143 Cal.App.2d 129; however, he concedes that the case is inapposite as it “did not decide punitive damages under Civil Code section 3294.” (Pl.’s opposition to Def.’s motion to strike punitive damages (“Opposition”), p.7:10-11.) Plaintiff does not otherwise cite to any other case to support his argument that the complaint alleges facts supporting the imposition of punitive damages. (See Utility Consumers’ Action Network v. Public Utilities Commission (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 688, 697 (stating that “[t]he parties are required to support their points with argument, any case authority, and record citations”); see also In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 830 (stating that “[w]e are not bound to develop appellants’ arguments for them... [t]he absence of cogent legal argument or citation to authority allows this court to treat the contentions as waived”); see also City of Ontario v.

We Buy Houses Any Condition, LLC (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 1212, 1223 (stating same); see also Trinity Risk Management v. Simplified Labor Staffing Solutions (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 995, 1008 (stating that

“[w]hen an appellant fails to raise a point, or asserts it but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to authority, we treat the point as waived”); see also Utility Consumers' Action Network, supra, 187 Cal.App.4th at p. 697 (stating that “[t]he parties are required to support their points with argument, any case authority, and record citations”).)

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to strike the allegations supporting punitive damages is GRANTED with 10 days leave to amend. Paragraph 11, subparagraph g and paragraph 14, subparagraph a(2) on page 3 of the complaint are hereby stricken.

Defendant shall prepare and submit a proposed final order consistent with this tentative ruling.

10