This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/18/2022 at 18:30:43 (UTC).

KASH LEE CRUZ PAYNE, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM SHARON ZURI CRUZ RODRI VS CITY OF SOUTH GATE, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 11/12/2021 KASH LEE CRUZ PAYNE, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM SHARON ZURI CRUZ RODRI filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against CITY OF SOUTH GATE, A PUBLIC ENTITY. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is AUDRA MORI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******1720

  • Filing Date:

    11/12/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

AUDRA MORI

 

Party Details

Defendants

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION A PUBLIC ENTITY

CITY OF SOUTH GATE A PUBLIC ENTITY

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES A PUBLIC ENTITY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant Attorneys

PELCH MANAL H.

SALINAS ESQ RAUL F

THOMAS ALLEN

Other Attorneys

ROFAEL JOHN R.

 

Court Documents

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

3/16/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO STRIKE (NOT ANTI-SLAPP) - WITHOUT DEMURRER)

Notice of Ruling

3/17/2022: Notice of Ruling

Answer

3/17/2022: Answer

Proof of Personal Service

1/6/2022: Proof of Personal Service

Proof of Personal Service

1/13/2022: Proof of Personal Service

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF NON-JURISDICTION

1/25/2022: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF NON-JURISDICTION

Answer

1/25/2022: Answer

Answer

1/28/2022: Answer

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

2/2/2022: Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer

Reply - REPLY REPLY MEMORANDUM RE NONOPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CITY OF SOUTH GATE’S MOTION TO STRIKE DECLARATION OF FRANCES Q. JETT

3/9/2022: Reply - REPLY REPLY MEMORANDUM RE NONOPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CITY OF SOUTH GATE’S MOTION TO STRIKE DECLARATION OF FRANCES Q. JETT

Proof of Personal Service

12/29/2021: Proof of Personal Service

Application And Order For Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem - APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR KASH

11/18/2021: Application And Order For Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem - APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR KASH

Notice of Rejection Of Electronic Filing

11/18/2021: Notice of Rejection Of Electronic Filing

PI General Order

11/29/2021: PI General Order

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

11/29/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [PI GENERAL ORDER], STANDING ORDER RE PI PROCEDURES AND HEARING DATES

Application And Order For Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem - APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR KASH

12/3/2021: Application And Order For Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem - APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR KASH

Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

12/10/2021: Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

Civil Case Cover Sheet

11/12/2021: Civil Case Cover Sheet

8 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/08/2024
  • Hearing11/08/2024 at 08:30 AM in Department 31 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2023
  • Hearing05/12/2023 at 08:30 AM in Department 31 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/28/2023
  • Hearing04/28/2023 at 10:00 AM in Department 31 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/17/2022
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by CITY OF SOUTH GATE, A PUBLIC ENTITY (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/17/2022
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by CITY OF SOUTH GATE, A PUBLIC ENTITY (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/16/2022
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 31, Audra Mori, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/16/2022
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2022
  • DocketReply (REPLY MEMORANDUM RE NONOPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CITY OF SOUTH GATES MOTION TO STRIKE DECLARATION OF FRANCES Q. JETT); Filed by CITY OF SOUTH GATE, A PUBLIC ENTITY (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2022
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 31, Audra Mori, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2022
  • DocketMotion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer; Filed by CITY OF SOUTH GATE, A PUBLIC ENTITY (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
5 More Docket Entries
  • 12/29/2021
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by KASH LEE CRUZ PAYNE, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM SHARON ZURI CRUZ RODRI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2021
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by KASH LEE CRUZ PAYNE, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM SHARON ZURI CRUZ RODRI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2021
  • DocketApplication And Order For Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem (for Kash); Filed by KASH LEE CRUZ PAYNE, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM SHARON ZURI CRUZ RODRI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/29/2021
  • DocketPI General Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/29/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ([PI General Order], Standing Order re PI Procedures and Hearing Dates); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/18/2021
  • DocketNotice of Rejection of Electronic Filing; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/18/2021
  • DocketApplication And Order For Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem (for Kash); Filed by KASH LEE CRUZ PAYNE, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM SHARON ZURI CRUZ RODRI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2021
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by KASH LEE CRUZ PAYNE, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM SHARON ZURI CRUZ RODRI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2021
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by KASH LEE CRUZ PAYNE, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM SHARON ZURI CRUZ RODRI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******1720 Hearing Date: March 16, 2022 Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

KASH LEE CRUZ PAYNE, a minor by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, SHARON ZURI CRUZ RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

CITY OF SOUTH GATE, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)))

Case No.: *******1720

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

March 16, 2022

1. Background

Plaintiff, Kash Lee Cruz Payne, a minor, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, Sharon Zuri Cruz Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants, City of South Gate (“City”), County of Los Angeles, and California Department of Transportation for premises liability. Plaintiff alleges Plaintiff tripped over an uneven and/or raise and/or broken and/or deteriorating roadway and/or street and fell, sustaining injuries.

Defendant City now moves to strike the words “recklessly and/or wantonly” contained in Attachment Prem L-1 to the complaint. No opposition has been filed.

2. Motion to Strike

The court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., 436(a).) The court may also strike 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. (Id., 436(b).) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Id., 437.) “When the defect which justifies striking a complaint is capable of cure, the court should allow leave to amend.” (Vaccaro v. Kaiman (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 761, 768.)

a. Meet and Confer

“Before filing a motion to strike pursuant to this chapter, the moving party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion to strike for the purpose of determining of an agreement can be reached that resolves the objections to be raised in the motion to strike.” (Code Civ. Proc., 435.5(a).)

Defendant City’s counsel states that a letter setting forth City’s position and requesting removal of the phrase “recklessly and/or wantonly” was sent via email to Plaintiff’s counsel on January 4, 2022. (Motion, Jett Decl., 3-4.) City’s counsel states that when no responses were received to the January 4, 2022 letter, additional emails were sent to Plaintiff’s counsel on January 12, 2022 and January 31, 2022 inquiring as to the status of a response. (Id., 5.) To date, Plaintiff’s counsel has not responded. (Id., 6.)

As Defendant’s counsel did not attempt to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel in person or by telephone, Defendant has failed to satisfy the meet and confer requirement. However, an insufficient meet and confer is not grounds to grant or deny the motion to strike. (Code Civ. Proc., 435.5(a)(4).) The Court will thus address the merits of the motion.

b. Analysis

Defendant City moves to strike the words “recklessly and/or wantonly” from the complaint on grounds that these words are used in connection with a claim for punitive damages and are thus improper because punitive damages are not recoverable against public entities.

A motion to strike should be applied cautiously and sparingly because it is used to strike substantive defects. (PH II, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1683.) A party cannot use a motion to strike as a “line item veto.” (Id.)

Here, the words “recklessly and/or wantonly” are used in the following context according to Defendant City: Defendants “negligently, recklessly and/or wantonly owned, maintained, operated, controlled and safeguarded the premises.” Plaintiff seeks only compensatory damages. There is no request for punitive damages in the Complaint.

Use of the words “recklessly and/or wantonly” in this context do not constitute a substantive defect. Additionally, City has not provided any legal authority showing that the words “recklessly and/or wantonly” are necessarily used in connection with a claim for punitive damages. The words “recklessly and/or wantonly” alone do not constitute a request for punitive damages that warrants striking when Plaintiff has not requested punitive damages.

Accordingly, the motion to strike is DENIED.

Defendant City is ordered to give notice.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.

Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.

Dated this 16th day of March, 2022

Hon. Audra Mori

Judge of the Superior Court


related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where CITY OF SOUTH GATE A is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer ROFAEL JOHN R.