DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
S-CV-0056897·placer·Civil·Civil
Hearing in about 4 hoursGRANTED

POTAPOVA, ANASTASIIA v. TESLA

Motion to Strike the Complaint

Hearing date
Aug 28, 2026
Department
1
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Strike rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffANASTASIIA POTAPOVA
DefendantTESLA, INC.

Ruling

PLACER COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT FRIDAY, CIVIL LAW AND MOTION DEPARTMENT 1 COMMISSIONER CHRISTINE S. DEHR TENTATIVE RULINGS FOR AUGUST 28, 2026 AT 8:30 A.M.

17. S-CV-0056897 POTAPOVA, ANASTASIIA v. TESLA

NOTE: If oral argument is requested in this case, it shall be heard on AUGUST 28, 2026 AT 1:00 P.M. in DEPARTMENT 1.

Defendant Tesla, Inc.’s Motion to Strike the Complaint

The motion is granted with leave to amend. (Code of Civil Procedure section 435(b)(1), 436(a), (b).)

Defendant challenges the punitive damages alleged in the complaint, asserting plaintiffs have not pled sufficient facts to support such a request. The court has carefully considered the allegations within the complaint, reading the pleading as a whole and providing the most liberal construction in favor of plaintiffs. A review of the allegations show that the allegations as to defendant Tesla are pled in a conclusory fashion without sufficient specific factual allegations to support punitive damages. (Civil Code section 3294; Brousseau v. Jarrett (1997) 73 Cal.App.3d 864, 872.) In light of this, the motion is granted.

The language referencing punitive damages in pp. 9:22-10:3; 15:8-18; 23:18; and 24:2 is stricken.

A first amended complaint shall be filed and served by September 11, 2026.

///

PLACER SUPERIOR COURT – DEPARTMENT 1 Friday Civil Law and Motion – Tentative Rulings

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share