Motion to Strike Portions of Cross-Complaint Filed by Jie Wang
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 25CV000007: U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, A NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO MUFG UNION BANK, N.A., vs WANG, et al. 06/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Portions of Cross-Complaint Filed by Jie Wang; filed by U.S. BANK, National Association, a national banking association, successor by merger to MUFG UNION BANK, N.A., (Cross-Defendant) CRS# 750143215686 in Department 23 Tentative Ruling - 06/01/2026 Ruben Sundeen The Motion to Strike (not initial pleading) Portions of Cross-Complaint filed by Jie Wang filed by U.S. BANK, National Association, a national banking association, successor by merger to MUFG UNION BANK, N.A., on 09/29/2025 is Granted. Plaintiff and cross-defendant U.S. Bank, National Association (Bank) moves to strike the request for punitive damages in the Cross-Complaint.
The Court may, on any terms it deems proper, strike from any pleading irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted into the pleading, as well as all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc. §436.)
In order to justify an award of exemplary damages, the defendant must be guilty of oppression, fraud or malice. (Silberg v. California Life Ins. Co. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 452, 462, citing Civil Code § 3294.) He must act with the intent to vex, injure or annoy, or with a conscious disregard of the plaintiff’s rights. (Id.)
Defendant and cross-complainant Jie Wangs (Wang) seeks punitive damages in connection with the second cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The second cause of action alleges that the Bank breached the implied covenant in the subject promissory note by refusing to accept mortgage payments that would have cured Wangs default. (See Cross-Complaint ¶¶ 12-15.) The Cross-Complaint does not allege conduct by the Bank that rises to the level of oppression, fraud, or malice, or plead any acts by the Bank indicating that it acted with the intent to injure Wang or acted in conscious disregard of Wangs rights. Wang did not oppose this motion or identify any allegations that could support a claim for punitive damages.
Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. The Court hereby STRIKES Wangs request for punitive damages. *If a party does not timely contest the tentative ruling and appear at the hearing, the tentative ruling will become the order of the Court.*
How to Contest a Tentative Ruling
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 25CV000007: U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, A NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO MUFG UNION BANK, N.A., vs WANG, et al. 06/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Portions of Cross-Complaint Filed by Jie Wang; filed by U.S. BANK, National Association, a national banking association, successor by merger to MUFG UNION BANK, N.A., (Cross-Defendant) CRS# 750143215686 in Department 23 Through the eCourt Public Portal To contest a tentative ruling, notify the Court and all parties no later than 4:00 p.m. one court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue by completing the following steps: 1. Log in to the eCourt Public Portal.
2. Select Case Search.
3. Enter the case number and select Search.
4. Select the case name.
5. Select the Tentative Rulings tab.
6. Click Contest This Ruling. 7. Enter your name and reason for contesting.
8. Select Proceed. You must also notify the department and all opposing parties by 4:00 p.m. one court day before the hearing. Notice to the department must be sent to: Dept23@alameda.courts.ca.gov. Remote Appearance Information For Department 23 Zoom appearance information, please visit: https://eportal.alameda.courts.ca.gov/?q=node/397/1152402 Please provide this information to any self-represented or opposing parties.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”