This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/22/2020 at 01:49:38 (UTC).

JING DONG VS SAMUEL PEREZ

Case Summary

On 04/22/2019 JING DONG filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against SAMUEL PEREZ. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WENDY CHANG. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******3900

  • Filing Date:

    04/22/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

WENDY CHANG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

DONG JING

Defendant

PEREZ SAMUEL

Not Classified By Court

LOPEZ SANDRA Y.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Not Classified By Court Attorney

VARDANYAN GEVORG S

 

Court Documents

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Defense Counsel Gevorg Vardanyan in Support of Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Prayer for Punitive Damages

2/6/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Defense Counsel Gevorg Vardanyan in Support of Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Prayer for Punitive Damages

Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

2/7/2020: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

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

2/19/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer)

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

2/25/2020: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Notice of Change of Firm Name - Notice of Change of Firm Name

8/14/2020: Notice of Change of Firm Name - Notice of Change of Firm Name

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 09/21/2020

9/21/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 09/21/2020

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

9/21/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

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

12/18/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer)

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

5/28/2019: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

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

6/4/2019: Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer - Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer

Complaint - Complaint

4/22/2019: Complaint - Complaint

Summons - Summons on Complaint

4/22/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

4/22/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

4/22/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

4/22/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

3 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/25/2022
  • Hearing04/25/2022 at 10:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/27/2021
  • Hearing05/27/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2020
  • DocketJury Trial scheduled for 05/27/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Event scheduled for 10/19/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Type changed from Non-Jury Trial to Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Court Order)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 09/21/2020; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2020
  • DocketReset - Court Unavailable, Jury Trial scheduled for 10/19/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court was rescheduled to 05/27/2021 08:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/17/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Gevorg S Vardanyan (Attorney): Organization Name changed from HARTSUYKER STRATMAN WILLIAMS-ABREGO to STRATMAN SCHWARTZ & WILLIAMS-ABREGO

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2020
  • DocketNotice of Change of Firm Name; Filed by: Sandra Y. Lopez (Non-Party); New Firm Name: STRATMAN SCHWARTZ & WILLIAMS-ABREGO

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2020
  • DocketNotice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by: Sandra Y. Lopez (Non-Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
11 More Docket Entries
  • 06/04/2019
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer scheduled for 12/18/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2019
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: Jing Dong (Plaintiff); As to: Sandra Y. Lopez (Non-Party); Service Date: 05/19/19; Service Cost: 0.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 04/25/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 10/19/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Wendy Chang in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Jing Dong (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Jing Dong (Plaintiff); As to: Samuel Perez (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC03900    Hearing Date: February 19, 2020    Dept: 26

Dong v. Lopez, et al.

MOTION TO STRIKE

(CCP §§435-436)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Sandra Y. Lopez’s Motion to Strike Punitive Damages is GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Jing Dong (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Sandra Y. Lopez (“Defendant”) on April 22, 2019. On June 4, 2019, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Strike Punitive Damages. The Motion initially came for hearing on December 18, 2019, at which time the Court continued the matter to allow Defendant to demonstrate compliance with the meet and confer requirement set forth at Code of Civil Procedure section 435.5. Specifically, the Court ordered Defendant to (1) meet and confer to determine whether an agreement can be reached that resolves

the issue raised in the Motion to strike; and (2) file and serve a declaration regarding the meet and confer efforts at least five court days before the continued hearing.

On February 6, 2020, Defendant filed a declaration indicating that Plaintiff had agreed to file an amended complaint without a prayer for punitive damages. On February 7, 2020, Plaintiff, who originally filed this action in pro per, filed a request to dismiss the punitive damages through an attorney. The request to dismiss was rejected on the grounds that no substitution of attorney has been filed. (Request for Dismissal, filed 2/7/20, ¶6.) The Court having now found Defendant has satisfied the meet and confer effort will rule on the merits of the Motion.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 436 provides, as follows:

The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper:

(a)

(b) court.

A request for punitive damages may be made pursuant to Cal. Civil Code 3294, which provides, as follows: “In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).)

Subdivision (c) of the same statute provides, as follows:

(c) As used in this section, the following definitions shall apply:

(1) “Malice” means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.

(2) “Oppression” means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.

(3) “Fraud” means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.

(Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c).)

Discussion

Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to support the prayer for punitive damages in the Complaint. Plaintiff’s Complaint contains causes of action for motor vehicle and general negligence. Plaintiff alleges Defendant was the legal (proximate) cause of her damages. (Compl., p. 5.) Plaintiff alleges Defendant “was allowed or caused to operate, maintain and drive a motor vehicle doing such in a negligent (as evidenced by her prior driving offenses) manner so as to collide with the plaintiff’s vehicle and then other portions, left rear, thereof.” (Ibid.) Plaintiff alleges the “collision was caused by Defendant (s) illegal operation of a motor vehicle and in violation of CA Vehicle Motor codes sections 21543 (a) running a red light; 21800 – 21809 failure to yield the right of and all related applicable sections of the CA Vehicle Code…” (Ibid.) However, these allegations, which are taken as true for purposes of a motion to strike, do not establish Defendant “has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).)

Based on the foregoing, DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO STRIKE IS GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

Defendant to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC03900    Hearing Date: December 18, 2019    Dept: 94

MOTION TO STRIKE

(C.C.P. §§435-436)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Sandra Y. Lopez’s motion to strike is CONTINUED. DEFENDANT DID NOT COMPLY WITH C.C.P. §435.5. THE PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO MEET AND CONFER TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN AGREEMENT CAN BE REACHED THAT RESOLVES THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE MOTION TO STRIKE. DEFENDANT SHALL FILE AND SERVE A DECLARATION REGARDING THE MEET AND CONFER EFFORTS AT LEAST FIVE COURT DAYS BEFORE THE CONTINUED HEARING.

ANALYSIS:

Defendant Sandra Y. Lopez (“Defendant”) moves to strike the prayer for punitive damages in the complaint of Plaintiff Jing Dong (“Plaintiff”), pursuant to C.C.P. §§435 and 436. Defendant argues Plaintiff failed to allege facts to support the prayer for punitive damages. (See Civil Code §3294.)

The moving party must meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is the subject of the motion to strike at least five days before the date the motion to strike must be filed. (C.C.P. §435.5(a)(1)-(2).) “If the parties are unable to meet and confer at least five days before the date the motion to strike must be filed, the moving party shall be granted an automatic 30-day extension of time within which to file a motion to strike, by filing and serving, on or before the date a motion to strike must be filed, a declaration stating under penalty of perjury that a good faith attempt to meet and confer was made and explaining the reasons why the parties could not meet and confer. The 30-day extension shall commence from the date the motion to strike was previously due, and the moving party shall not be subject to default during the period of the extension. Any further extensions shall be obtained by court order upon a showing of good cause.” (C.C.P. §435.5(a)(2).)

The moving party must file a declaration in support of the motion to strike stating either that the “means by which the moving party met and conferred with the party who filed the pleading subject to the motion to strike, and that the parties did not reach an agreement resolving the objections raised by the motion to strike” or “the party who filed the pleading subject to the motion to strike failed to respond to the meet and confer request of the moving party or otherwise failed to meet and confer in good faith.” (C.C.P. §435.5(a)(3)(A)-(B).)

Defendant did not establish compliance with the meet and confer requirement set forth in C.C.P. §435.5(a). Defendant also did not file a declaration that complies with C.C.P. §435.5(a)(3).

Based on the foregoing, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE IS CONTINUED TO February 19, 2020 at 10:30 a.m.

THE PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO MEET AND CONFER TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN AGREEMENT CAN BE REACHED THAT RESOLVES THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE MOTION TO STRIKE. DEFENDANT SHALL FILE AND SERVE A DECLARATION REGARDING THE MEET AND CONFER EFFORTS AT LEAST FIVE COURT DAYS BEFORE THE CONTINUED HEARING.

Defendant to give notice.