This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/28/2021 at 01:45:27 (UTC).

FRANK WILLIAM WHYTE VS KIM FUNK

Case Summary

On 12/13/2019 FRANK WILLIAM WHYTE filed a Personal Injury - Uninsured Motor Vehicle lawsuit against KIM FUNK. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is SERENA R. MURILLO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******1371

  • Filing Date:

    12/13/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Uninsured Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

SERENA R. MURILLO

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

WHYTE FRANK WILLIAM

Defendant

FUNK KIM

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

BENSON MARVIN

Defendant Attorneys

GLASSMAN NICOLE A.

BARKER T. DARREN

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) without Demurrer;)

11/22/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) without Demurrer;)

Reply (name extension) - Reply DEFENDANT KIM FUNK'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDNANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE

11/15/2021: Reply (name extension) - Reply DEFENDANT KIM FUNK'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDNANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Motion to Strike

11/1/2021: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Motion to Strike

Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer - Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer

10/12/2021: Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer - Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer

Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order to Continue Trial

10/19/2021: Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order to Continue Trial

Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order to Continue Trial

10/20/2021: Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order to Continue Trial

Commission to Take Deposition Outside California - Commission to Take Deposition Outside California

8/9/2021: Commission to Take Deposition Outside California - Commission to Take Deposition Outside California

Notice (name extension) - Notice Designation of Non-Retained Expert Witness Pursuant to CCP 2034.010 Et Seq.

4/12/2021: Notice (name extension) - Notice Designation of Non-Retained Expert Witness Pursuant to CCP 2034.010 Et Seq.

Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order to Continue Trial

5/6/2021: Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order to Continue Trial

Association of Attorney - Association of Attorney

6/2/2021: Association of Attorney - Association of Attorney

Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

6/2/2021: Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

Separate Statement - Separate Statement

5/22/2020: Separate Statement - Separate Statement

Separate Statement - Separate Statement

5/22/2020: Separate Statement - Separate Statement

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

5/22/2020: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

5/22/2020: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

5/22/2020: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Separate Statement - Separate Statement

5/22/2020: Separate Statement - Separate Statement

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

6/1/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

15 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/22/2022
  • Hearing03/22/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/22/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer: Filed By: Kim Funk (Defendant); Result: Denied; Result Date: 11/22/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/22/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) without Demurrer;)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/22/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer scheduled for 11/22/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 11/22/2021; Result Type to Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/15/2021
  • DocketReply DEFENDANT KIM FUNK'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDNANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE; Filed by: Kim Funk (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/01/2021
  • DocketOpposition to Motion to Strike; Filed by: Frank William Whyte (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/29/2021
  • DocketStipulation and Order to Continue Trial Date (Duplicate Request) - Rejected; Submitted by: Frank William Whyte (Plaintiff); As to: Kim Funk (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2021
  • DocketStipulation and Order to Continue Trial; Signed and Filed by: Frank William Whyte (Plaintiff); As to: Kim Funk (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2021
  • DocketOrder on Stipulation to Continue Trial; Signed and Filed by: Frank William Whyte (Plaintiff); As to: Kim Funk (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Order on Stipulation to Continue Trial: Name Extension changed from to Continue Trial to on Stipulation to Continue Trial; Document changed from Stipulation and Order (name extension) to Order (name extension); As To Parties changed from Kim Funk (Defendant) to Kim Funk (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
27 More Docket Entries
  • 03/03/2020
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: Kim Funk (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2020
  • DocketNotice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by: Kim Funk (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 06/11/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 12/16/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Frank William Whyte (Plaintiff); As to: Kim Funk (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Frank William Whyte (Plaintiff); As to: Kim Funk (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Frank William Whyte (Plaintiff); As to: Kim Funk (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Frank William Whyte (Plaintiff); As to: Kim Funk (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Serena R. Murillo in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 19STLC11371 Hearing Date: November 22, 2021 Dept: 26

Whyte v. Funk, et al. 19STLC11371

MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES

\r\n\r\n

(CCP §§ 435, 435)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant Kim Funk’s Motion to Strike is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

On December 13, 2019, Plaintiff Frank William Whyte\r\n(“Plaintiff”) filed this action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Kim\r\nFunk (“Defendant”). Defendant filed an Answer on March 3, 2020. On October 12,\r\n2021, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Strike the Request for Punitive\r\nDamages. Plaintiff filed an opposition on November 1, 2021.

Discussion

The Motion to Strike is not timely. A motion to strike may\r\nbe brought within the time to file a responsive pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., §\r\n435, subd. (b)(1).) Defendant filed an Answer on March 3, 2020, but did not\r\nmove to strike at the same time. Instead, Defendant filed the instant Motion to\r\nStrike more than 19 months later.

Also, the Motion is not\r\naccompanied by a meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil\r\nProcedure section 435.5. “[T]he moving party shall meet and confer in person or\r\nby telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the\r\nmotion to strike for the purpose of determining if an agreement can be reached\r\nthat resolves the objections to be raised in the motion to strike.” (Code Civ.\r\nProc., § 435.5, subd. (a).) The parties are to meet and confer at least five\r\ndays before the date the responsive pleading is due. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435.5\r\n(a)(2).) Thereafter, the moving party shall file and serve a declaration\r\ndetailing their meet and confer efforts. (CCP § 435.5, subd. (a)(3).)

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Defendant\r\nKim Funk’s Motion to Strike is DENIED.

Plaintiff to give notice.

\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

'
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer GLASSMAN NICOLE ANN

Latest cases represented by Lawyer BARKER T. DARREN