DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC26277406·sf·Civil·Asbestos Litigation
Hearing 3 months agoDENIED

DONNA L. DILLON ET AL VS. CHATTEM INC. ET AL

MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT

Hearing date
May 26, 2026
Department
502
Judge
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Strike rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffDONNA L. DILLON
DefendantCHATTEM INC.
DefendantPuig North America Inc
DefendantPuig USA, Inc

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Asbestos Law & Motion - CGC26277406 - May 26, 2026 Hearing date: May 26, 2026 Case number: CGC26277406 Case title: DONNA L. DILLON ET AL VS. CHATTEM INC. ET AL Case Number: | | CGC26277406 | Case Title: | | DONNA L. DILLON ET AL VS. CHATTEM INC. ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-05-26 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT | Rulings: | | On Asbestos Law and Motion Calendar for Tuesday May 26, 2026, in Department 502, Line 2.

Defendants Puig North America Inc ("Puig North America") and Puig USA, Inc ("Puig USA") (collectively referred to as "Defendants") Motions to Strike Plaintiffs' Demand for Punitive Damages are DENIED. Oppositions filed. Replies filed. *Complete tentative ruling has been electronically served to Counsel

Any party wishing to contest the tentative ruling must email contestasbestostr@sftc.org by 4:00 p.m. on Friday, May 22, 2026, and state their intention to contest. If a hearing is requested, it will be on May 26, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 502. Attorneys may appear in person or remotely via zoom: Meeting ID 160 757 8308; Passcode: 485029.

The Court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law and Motion department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all the following: Their name, CSR and telephone number, and their individual work email address. There will be only one official record. =(vmh/502). | |

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