(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury case and its proceedings.)
It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this automobile accident case could just as easily involve any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, U.C. Davis Medical Center, Mercy, or Sutter.
LEGAL STANDARD ON MOTIONS 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. Black of the damages sought and the legal bases for those damages. Since Plaintiff has met the notice pleading requirements, Dr. Black’s motion to strike should fail on all accounts. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
PARAGRAPH 32 SHOULD NOT BE STRICKEN SINCE PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS ARE FACT-SPECIFIC AND ESTABLISH IN DETAIL HOW DR. BLACK 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. Black was awake for at least 18 hours prior to the incident.
Dr. Black 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. 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. Black’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 even longer, before driving home in a sleepy and fatigued condition. (See Part 6 of 11.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.