DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC26277403·sf·Civil·Asbestos Litigation
Hearing 3 months agoDefendants CVS Pharmacy, Inc; Longs Drug Stores California, LLC; Safeway Inc; and Walgreen Co's motions are GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; CVS motion is OVERRULED; Longs, Safeway, and Walgreens motion is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

JEREMY VOGLER ET AL VS. MERCK & CO., INC. ET AL

Motion to Strike Complaint

Hearing date
Jun 9, 2026
Department
502
Judge
Prevailing
Mixed

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Strike rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PlaintiffJeremy Vogler
DefendantMerck & Co., Inc.
DefendantCVS Pharmacy, Inc
DefendantLongs Drug Stores California, LLC
DefendantSafeway Inc
DefendantWalgreen Co

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Asbestos Law & Motion - CGC26277403 - June 9, 2026 Hearing date: June 9, 2026 Case number: CGC26277403 Case title: JEREMY VOGLER ET AL VS. MERCK & CO., INC. ET AL Case Number: | | CGC26277403 | Case Title: | | JEREMY VOGLER ET AL VS. MERCK & CO., INC. ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-06-09 16:00 PM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT | Rulings: | |

On Asbestos Law and Motion Calendar for Tuesday June 9, 2026, in Department 502, Line 4. Defendants CVS Pharmacy, Inc ("CVS"); Longs Drug Stores California, LLC ("Longs"); Safeway Inc, ("Safeway") and Walgreen Co's ("Walgreens") (collectively "Defendants") Motions to Strike the Complaint for Punitive damages are GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Oppositions filed. Replies filed.

Based on the discussion above, the Complaint only adequately alleges a fraud-based claim against Defendant CVS sufficient to support the cause of action that could serve as the basis for a punitive damages award. Accordingly, CVS's Motion to Strike portions of Plaintiffs' Complaint for punitive damages is OVERRULED. Accordingly, Longs, Safeway, and Walgreens' Motion to Strike portions of Plaintiffs' Complaint for punitive damages is GRANTED, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

*Complete tentative ruling has been electronically served to Counsel

The moving party shall lodge with the clerk in Department 502 by the time set for this hearing a proposed order repeating verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling. Any party wishing to contest the tentative ruling must email contestasbestostr@sftc.org by 4:00 p.m. on the day before the hearing and state their intention to contest. If a hearing is requested, it will be on June 9, 2026, at 4:00 p.m in Department 502. Attorneys may appear in person or remotely via zoom: Meeting ID 161 9575 2444; Passcode: 145616.

The Court no longer provides a court reporter. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. If a California certified court reporter (CSR) is being retained, include in your email all of the following: Their name, CSR and telephone number, and their individual work email address. There will be only one official record. If the parties cannot agree, the Court will designate a qualified court reporter to provide the official transcript for the matter, and the party or parties will bear the cost. = SKF/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