The following blog entry is written to illustrate a common motion filed during civil litigation. Reviewing this kind of filing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.
(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this automobile accident lawsuit and its proceedings.)
ARGUMENT
LEGAL STANDARDS ON MOTION TO STRIKE
Motions to strike are not favored. Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, § 7:197. The policy of California law is to construe the pleadings liberally … with a view to substantial justice. C.CP. § 452.
Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint meets the notice pleading requirements under California law. What is important is that the complaint as a whole contain sufficient facts to apprise the defendant of the basis upon which the plaintiff is seeking relief. Perkins v. Superior Ct. (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 1, 6. Specificity is not required in the Complaint because modern discovery procedures necessarily affect the amount of detail that should be required in a pleading. Ludgatelns. Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2000) 82 Cal. App.4th 592, 608. The First Amended Complaint adequately informs Dr. Lee of the damages sought and the legal bases for those damages. Since Plaintiff has met the notice pleading requirements, Dr. Lee’s motion to strike should fail on all accounts.
PARAGRAPH 32 SHOULD NOT BE STRICKEN SINCE PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS ARE FACT-SPECIFIC AND ESTABLISH IN DETAIL HOW DR. LEE ACTED WITH MALICE AND OPPRESSION
Defendant seeks to mislead the Court by alleging that Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages is conclusory and based solely on the new fact alleged that Dr. Lee was awake for at least 18 hours prior to the incident. Dr. Lee claims that Plaintiff’s new allegations contained within paragraphs 31 and 32 do not alter the factual scenario of the case, but that is exactly what the new allegations have done.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
Plaintiff’s new allegations contained within paragraphs 31 and 32 do not alter the factual scenario of the case, but that is exactly what the new allegations have done. Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages is based on a significant amount of new information in addition to the allegation above. Plaintiff has alleged in the First Amended Complaint a litany of facts supporting Dr. Lee’s malicious and oppressive behavior which gave rise to the subject incident. These facts extend beyond the account of her being awake for a continuous 18 hours, possibly longer, before driving home in an extremely sleepy and fatigued condition. (See Part 6 of 11.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.