RHOADS, FINNICK vs MCCANTS, BARBARA

fees to be shared equally between the respective parties to each referred dispute.

CV-26-003818 - ASSALI, JANNETTE vs REED, JAMES - Defendant's Motion to Strike Claims for Punitive Damages from Plaintiff's Complaint - GRANTED, with leave to amend. In order to state a prima facie claim for punitive damages, a complaint must set forth the elements as stated in the general punitive damage statute, Civil Code Sec. 3294 and must include specific factual allegations showing that defendant's conduct was oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious to support the claim. (Today's IV, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority) (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 1137, 1192-1193.)

Here, the Court notes Plaintiff's inclusion of specific factual allegations regarding the defendants' knowledge of the dog's history of multiple prior attacks, which appear sufficient to support a claim for punitive damages herein. However, Plaintiff has failed to allege the proper statutory elements to seek such damages. Specifically, the Court notes that Plaintiff alleges only that the defendants' conduct was reckless in connection with the subject incident, and recklessness alone is insufficient to support a claim for punitive damages. (Taylor v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 895.) Plaintiff shall submit her amended pleading within 20 days.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge David Hood in Department 24:

CV-22-004359 - THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs PEREZ, DESTINY - a) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Response to Request for Inspection of Documents and Tangible Things as to Alexander Ortiz - GRANTED, and unopposed; b) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Response to Form Interrogatories, Set No. One - GRANTED, and unopposed; c) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Response for Admissions as to Alexander Ortiz - GRANTED, and unopposed.

a) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Response to Request for Inspection of Documents and Tangible Things as to Alexander Ortiz

Petitioner has demonstrated that Requests for Inspection of Documents and Tangible Things were served upon Real Party in Interest Alexander Ortiz, that the time to respond expired, and that no responses were served. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2031.300.) Accordingly, the unopposed motion is GRANTED. Within 30 days of service of the signed order, Alexander Ortiz shall serve verified code-compliant responses to the Requests for Inspection, Set One, without objections. Any objections are deemed waived. Petitioner is directed to submit a new proposed order within five court days that correctly reflects the name of the judicial officer and that is consistent with this ruling.

b) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Response to Form Interrogatories, Set No. One

Petitioner has demonstrated that Form Interrogatories, Set One, were served upon Alexander Ortiz, that the time to respond expired, and that no responses were served. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2030.290.) Consequently, the unopposed motion is GRANTED. Within 30 days of service of the signed order, Alexander Ortiz shall serve verified code-compliant responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, without objections. Any objections are deemed waived. Petitioner is directed to submit a new proposed order within five court days that correctly reflects the name of the judicial officer and that is consistent with this ruling.

c) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Response to Request for Admissions as to Alexander Ortiz

Petitioner has demonstrated that Requests for Admissions were served upon Alexander Ortiz, that the time to respond expired, and that no responses were served. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.280.) As a result, the truth of the matters specified in Petitioner's Requests for Admissions is deemed admitted. Petitioner is directed to submit a new proposed order within five court days that correctly reflects the name of the judicial officer and that is consistent with this ruling. Petitioner is then required to serve a copy of the signed order on Alexander Ortiz.

CV-23-006045 - RHOADS, FINNICK vs MCCANTS, BARBARA - Defendant Barbara Mccants' Motion for Summary Adjudication - GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as MOOT, and unopposed.

As to Issue One, Defendant has met her initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a triable issue regarding her knowledge of dangerous propensities. Defendant established that she had no safety concerns regarding her dog, "General," before the incident (SUF No. 5), had never observed General behave aggressively (SUF No. 6), was unaware of any prior biting incidents (SUF No. 7), and knew only of behavior she described as playful "flea biting" (SUF No. 8). Defendant's evidence therefore negates an essential element of the strict-liability claim. No opposition was filed and no evidence was presented creating a triable issue of material fact. Summary adjudication of the second cause of action is therefore GRANTED.

As to Issues Two, Three, and Four, Defendant's reply acknowledges that the claims of Harold Rhoads, Riley Rhoads, and Sarah Rhoads have been resolved and are moot in light of their dismissal from the action. Accordingly, Issues Two, Three, and Four are DENIED as MOOT.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Commissioner Richard D. Moths in Department 19 located at the Turlock Division at 300 Starr Avenue, Turlock, CA:

***There are no Tentative Rulings for Department 19***