Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 03/22/2021 at 15:04:49 (UTC).

HAIM AHRONI VS LISA DIANE HARPER, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 06/23/2020 HAIM AHRONI filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against LISA DIANE HARPER. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH and MICHAEL E. WHITAKER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******3676

  • Filing Date:

    06/23/2020

  • 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

Presiding Judges

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

MICHAEL E. WHITAKER

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

AHRONI HAIM

Defendants

HARPER LISA DIANE

HARPER SCOTT

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

LANDVER ALINA

Defendant Attorneys

D'AMICO GUILLAUME

MYERS NICHOLAS

HERNANDEZ GEORGE JAMES

 

Court Documents

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES

1/4/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO STRIKE (NOT ANTI-SLAPP) - WITHOUT DEMURRER)

1/13/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO STRIKE (NOT ANTI-SLAPP) - WITHOUT DEMURRER)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (HEARING ON MOTION TO STRIKE (NOT ANTI-SLAPP) - WITHOUT DEMURRER) OF 01/13/2021

1/13/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (HEARING ON MOTION TO STRIKE (NOT ANTI-SLAPP) - WITHOUT DEMURRER) OF 01/13/2021

Notice of Ruling

1/15/2021: Notice of Ruling

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

1/19/2021: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Answer

1/19/2021: Answer

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

12/14/2020: Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer

Amended Complaint - 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT

12/3/2020: Amended Complaint - 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Notice of Ruling

12/3/2020: Notice of Ruling

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY

11/5/2020: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO STRIKE (NOT ANTI-SLAPP) - WITHOUT DEMURRER)

12/2/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO STRIKE (NOT ANTI-SLAPP) - WITHOUT DEMURRER)

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

8/4/2020: Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

8/6/2020: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Proof of Personal Service

8/6/2020: Proof of Personal Service

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [PI GENERAL ORDER], STANDING ORDER RE PI PROCEDURE AND HEARING DATES

7/7/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [PI GENERAL ORDER], STANDING ORDER RE PI PROCEDURE AND HEARING DATES

Civil Case Cover Sheet

6/26/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

6/26/2020: Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

Complaint

6/23/2020: Complaint

11 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/20/2023
  • Hearing06/20/2023 at 08:30 AM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2021
  • Hearing12/21/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/07/2021
  • Hearing12/07/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 32 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2021
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by LISA DIANE HARPER (Defendant); SCOTT HARPER (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2021
  • DocketNotice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by LISA DIANE HARPER (Defendant); SCOTT HARPER (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by LISA DIANE HARPER (Defendant); SCOTT HARPER (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2021
  • Docketat 3:30 PM in Department 32, Michael E. Whitaker, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Hearing on Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer) of 01/13/2021); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/05/2021
  • DocketReply (BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS? LISA DIANE HARPER AND SCOTT HARPER?S MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES); Filed by LISA DIANE HARPER (Defendant); SCOTT HARPER (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
8 More Docket Entries
  • 08/06/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by HAIM AHRONI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/06/2020
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by HAIM AHRONI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2020
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by LISA DIANE HARPER (Defendant); SCOTT HARPER (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/04/2020
  • DocketMotion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer; Filed by LISA DIANE HARPER (Defendant); SCOTT HARPER (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/07/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ([PI General Order], Standing Order re PI Procedure and Hearing Dates); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/07/2020
  • DocketPI General Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by HAIM AHRONI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2020
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by HAIM AHRONI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/23/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by HAIM AHRONI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/23/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STCV23676    Hearing Date: January 13, 2021    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

haim ahroni,

Plaintiff,

v.

lisa diane harper, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 20STCV23676

Hearing Date: January 13, 2021

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

mOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Background

Plaintiff Haim Ahroni (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Lisa Diane Harper and Scott Harper (collectively, “Defendants”) following a motor vehicle collision. Now, Defendants move to strike the prayer for punitive damages, which Plaintiff opposes. The motion is granted without leave to amend.

LEGAL STANDARD

Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading, may serve and file a

motion to strike the whole pleading or any part thereof. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1322, subd. (b).) On a motion to strike, the court may: (1) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a)-(b); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782.)

DISCUSSION

To state a prima facie claim for punitive damages, a plaintiff must allege the elements set forth in the punitive damages statute, Civil Code section 3294. (Coll. Hosp., Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 721.) Per Civil Code section 3294, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).) “Malice is defined in the statute as conduct 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.” (Coll. Hosp., Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 725.) “The mere allegation an intentional tort was committed is not sufficient to warrant an award of punitive damages. Not only must there be circumstances of oppression, fraud or malice, but facts must be alleged in the pleading to support such a claim.” (Grieves v. Superior Ct. (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166, internal citations and footnotes omitted.)

In this case, Plaintiff alleges the following: (1) Defendant Lisa Harper veered into Lane #1 in front of Plaintiff’s vehicle due to inattentive driving and speeding; (2) In doing so, Defendant Lisa Harper violated Vehicle Code section 22107; (3) Defendant Lisa Harper unlawfully entered Plaintiff’s path of travel; and (4) There was negligent entrustment. None of these allegation supports a claim for punitive damages. To the contrary, this case sounds in negligence. If the Court permitted a claim for punitive damages under these circumstances, the vast majority of motor vehicle collision cases would involve such a claim, which is not the law.

Conclusion and Order

Defendants’ motion to strike the prayer for punitive damages is granted. The Court previously granted leave to amend, to no avail, so this motion is granted without leave to amend. Defendants shall file an answer within statutory time periods. Defendants shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: January 13, 2021 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: 20STCV23676    Hearing Date: December 02, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

haim ahroni,

Plaintiff,

vs.

lisa diane harper, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 20STCV23676

Hearing Date: December 2, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

mOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Background

Plaintiff Haim Ahroni (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Lisa Diane Harper and Scott Harper (collectively, “Defendants”) following a motor vehicle collision. Now, Defendants move to strike the prayer for punitive damages, which Plaintiff opposes. The motion is granted with leave to amend.

LEGAL STANDARD

Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading, may serve and file a

motion to strike the whole pleading or any part thereof. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1322, subd. (b).) On a motion to strike, the court may: (1) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a)-(b); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782.)

DISCUSSION

To state a prima facie claim for punitive damages, a plaintiff must allege the elements set forth in the punitive damages statute, Civil Code section 3294. (Coll. Hosp., Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 721.) Per Civil Code section 3294, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).) “Malice is defined in the statute as conduct 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.” (Coll. Hosp., Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 725.) “The mere allegation an intentional tort was committed is not sufficient to warrant an award of punitive damages. Not only must there be circumstances of oppression, fraud or malice, but facts must be alleged in the pleading to support such a claim.” (Grieves v. Superior Ct. (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166, internal citations and footnotes omitted.)

In this case, Plaintiff alleges the following: (1) Defendant Lisa Harper veered into Lane #1 in front of Plaintiff’s vehicle due to inattentive driving and speeding; (2) In doing so, Defendant Lisa Harper violated Vehicle Code section 22107; (3) Defendant Lisa Harper unlawfully entered Plaintiff’s path of travel; and (4) There was negligent entrustment. None of these allegation supports a claim for punitive damages. To the contrary, this case sounds in negligence. If the Court permitted a claim for punitive damages under these circumstances, the vast majority of motor vehicle collision cases would involve such a claim, which is not the law.

Conclusion and Order

Defendants’ motion to strike the prayer for punitive damages is granted with leave to amend. Plaintiff may file a first amended complaint within ten (10) days of notice. If Plaintiffs fail to do so, Defendants shall file an answer within statutory time periods from this deadline. Plaintiff shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: December 2, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer LANDVER ALINA