DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
30-2025-01523882-CU-PA-CJC·orange·Civil·Personal Injury
Hearing todayDENIED in part and GRANTED in part

Boyd vs. Fernandez

Motion to Strike Portions of First Amended Complaint

Hearing date
Sep 4, 2026
Department
C31
Prevailing
Mixed

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Strike rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffBoyd
DefendantAlejandro Fernandez

Ruling

that. Even if the parties had requested the court to reserve jurisdiction under section 664.6, there would be no settlement of attorney fees to enforce, because terms were not originally agreed upon by the parties. (See Levitz v. The Warlocks (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 531, 535 [“A settlement with open material terms is not a ‘conditional settlement.’ To the contrary, it is not a settlement at all because, like all contracts, it is not binding until the settling parties agree on all its material terms.”].)

Further, plaintiff “must follow the procedures outlined in [California Rules of Court, rule 3.1385] subdivisions (a) and (b) even if the parties settle the case and agree to dismiss under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.” (Advisory Com. com., Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1385.) And, “Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 allows for but does not mandate the dismissal of cases with conditional settlements either upon stipulation of the parties or on the court’s own motion. Subdivision (c) provides an alternative process for cases with a conditional settlement in which dismissal is not sought under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6” (Id.)

Because the court has lost jurisdiction and the issues are not material to the motion, the court will not decide whether the misrepresentation is material or potentially subject to sanctions, whether a true settlement or only an agreement to agree was reached, arguments concerning enforceability of the 998 offer, and/or whether some other procedure was viable. The court rules only that the chosen course of action was not.

Clerk to give notice.

5 Holcomb Motion to Deem Vexatious Litigant vs. Aliso Villa Continued to 10/2/2025 for parties to comply with Condominium California Rules of Court. Assco 30-2026- 01559179-CU- NP-CJC 6 Boyd vs. Motion to Strike Portions of First Amended Fernandez Complaint 30-2025- Defendant/cross-complainant Alejandro Fernandez’s 01523882-CU- Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s First Amended PA-CJC Complaint is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part with 10 days leave to amend.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice.

The FAC does not allege Plaintiff voluntarily consumed alcoholic beverages to the point of intoxication knowing from the outset he must thereafter operate a motor vehicle. (See Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 899 [citation omitted].)

The Court GRANTS Defendant/cross-complainant’s Motion to Strike with respect to Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages.

A determination of whether the specific felonies alleged to have been committed by Defendant may ultimately establish the basis for attorney fees is not appropriate at this stage.

The Court DENIES Defendant/cross-complainant’s Motion to Strike with respect to paragraphs 16 and 18 and the allegations and prayer regarding attorney fees pursuant to Civil Code section 1021.4.

If Plaintiff chooses to amend, Plaintiff is ORDERED to file a red-lined and clean copy of the amended pleading.

Clerk to give notice.

7 Vasquez vs. Demurrer to Complaint Mercedes-Benz Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC’s Demurrer to the USA, LLC Complaint is OVERRULED. Defendant is ORDERED to file 30-2026- 01559886-CU- its answer within 5 days. BC-CJC Plaintiff alleges sufficient facts to support her Song Beverly claims. Plaintiff alleges the vehicle was purchased with an “express written warranty.” (Compl., ¶ 11.) Thus, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged facts to support a claim the vehicle qualified as a “new motor vehicle” and the claim does not stem from any warranty provided from the original lease of the vehicle. (See Rodriguez v. FCA US LLC (2024) 17 Cal.5th 189, 205 [vehicle sold with balance left on new car warranty not “new motor vehicle” unless new warranty issued with sale.)

Clerk to give notice.

8 Choi vs. Oh Demurrer to Complaint 30-2026- Defendants David Byungik Oh and The Happier Church’s 01547737-CU- Demurrer to Plaintiffs Yoon Suk Choi and Jea H. Kim aka PO-CJC Joshua Kim’s Complaint is OVERRULED in part and SUSTAINED in part with 10 days leave to amend.

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