DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CIVSB2534194·sanbernardino·Civil·Civil
Hearing 2 months agoGRANTED

Goshay vs WM Inland Investors IV et al

Motion to strike punitive damage allegations

Hearing date
Jun 17, 2026
Department
S37
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Strike rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffGoshay
DefendantWM Inland Investors IV

Ruling

TENTATIVE RULING(S) FOR June 17, 2026 Department S37 – Judge Winston Keh This court follows California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(b) for tentative rulings. (See San Bernardino Superior Court Local Emergency Rule 8.) Tentative rulings for each law & motion will be posted on the internet (https://www.sb-court.org) by 3:00 p.m. on the court day immediately before the hearing.

You may appear in person at the hearing although remote appearance by CourtCall is preferred. (See www.sb-court.org/general-information/remote-access).

If you do not have Internet access or if you experience difficulty with the posted tentative ruling, you may obtain the tentative ruling by calling the department (S-37) at (909) 708-8707 or the Administrative Assistant (909) 708-8756, who prepared the ruling.

If you (or both parties) wish to submit on the Tentative, notify the other party and call the department by 4:00 pm the day before and your appearance may be excused unless the Court orders you to appear.

You must appear at the hearing if you are so directed by the court in the tentative ruling. Be prepared to address those issues set forth by the court in its ruling.

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE PREVAILING PARTY IS TO GIVE NOTICE OF THE

RULING.

Goshay vs WM Inland Investors IV et al

__________________________________________________________________________

TENTATIVE RULING(S):

Defendant WM Inland’s motion to strike punitive damage allegations

Motion is Granted. This motion is granted without prejudice to Plaintiff’s ability to

re-assert a claim for punitive damages should facts developed during discovery that

warrants imposition of punitive damages.

The following are stricken from Plaintiff’s Complaint: Paragraphs 10, 30, 31, 32, 33,

34, 35 and Prayer for Punitive Damages on page 10.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share