Ciotti v. Public Storage Operating Co

“In any action for damages arising out of the professional negligence of a health care provider, no claim for punitive damages shall be included in a complaint or other pleading unless the court enters an order allowing an amended pleading that includes a claim for punitive damages to be filed.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.13(a).) Section 425.13 applies to all claims “directly related to the manner in which professional services were provided.” (Central Pathology Service Medical Clinic, Inc. v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.4th 181, 192.)

Here, Plaintiff filed no opposition and thus does not dispute that all of his claims are directly related to the manner in which Moving Defendants provided professional services. Because Plaintiff has not complied with section 425.13(a), the motion to strike is GRANTED without leave to amend.

Case management conference is CONTINUED to September 4, 2026, at 2:00 p.m.

Moving Defendants shall give notice. 17 Ciotti v. Public On 4/20/26, this Court issued a modified Temporary Restraining Storage Order (“TRO”) at the request of Plaintiff Cari Ciotti (“Plaintiff”), and Operating Co set a May 18, 20206 hearing date for an Order to Show Cause re Preliminary Injunction. Specially Appearing Defendant Public Storage Operating Company (“Defendant”) filed an Opposition on 5/5/26. Plaintiff filed a reply brief on 5/11/26.

The request for issuance of a Preliminary Injunction is DENIED, and the TRO is discharged.

In determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction, the trial court considers two interrelated factors: (1) the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits at trial and (2) the interim harm that the plaintiff is likely to sustain if the injunction is denied as compared to the harm that the defendant is likely to suffer if the court grants a preliminary injunction. (Abrams v. St. John's Hospital & Health Center (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 628, 635–36.) The court’s determination is guided by a mix of the potential-merit and interim- harm factors; the greater the plaintiff’s showing on one, the less must be shown on the other. (Butt v. State of California (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668, 678.)

Here, Plaintiff has failed to show any reasonable probability of success on the merits. Defendant’s Opposition and the supporting declaration from Jillian Gonzalez demonstrate that Defendant appears to have complied with all legal requirements for the sale. (See B&P Code §21706 [unless a declaration in opposition to the lien sale, executed under penalty of perjury, is received by the owner on or prior to the date specified in the notice of lien sale, by certified mail, the owner may, subject to statutory requirements, sell the property].) Plaintiff has failed to present evidence to refute the evidence presented by Defendant. The request for issuance of a Preliminary Injunction is therefore DENIED, and the TRO is discharged.

Defendant’s request for judicial notice (ROA 36) is granted under Ev. Code §452(d) as to the existence of the record, but not as to the truth of any disputed facts asserted therein. (Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 256, 264; Arce v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 482.)

The clerk is to give notice of this ruling. 18 Sycamore No tentative Canyon Plaza, LLC vs. Yu 19 20 21