Looney v. Cedeno

Brown, et al., California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial ¶ 8:2235 (Rutter: 2025) (increasing sanctions for further discovery abuse).

The county’s counsel must submit a written order to the court consistent with this ruling and in compliance with Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312. The signature block should read as follows: Curtis E.A. Karnow (Ret.) Judge of the Superior Court (Sonoma) on Assignment

2. 25CV00845, Sebring v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Plaintiff Sean N. Sebring (Sebring) moves under CCP § 473(b) for relief from the order of August 26, 2025 which dismissed his action. Sebring also asks for a Case Management Conference (CMC) and for additional time to serve and file the summons and complaint and proof of service.

There is no opposition.

A CMC was set for June 24, 2025. Sebring did not file a CMC statement and did not appear at the hearing. Thus, the court issued an order to show cause re dismissal, setting it for August 26, 2025. Sebring failed to appear and the court dismissed this case.

Sebring now states he was unable to file a CMC statement or to appear at the hearing because he was jailed in the Sonoma County Main Adult Detention Facility from April 23, 2025, through October 4, 2025. As a result, and despite repeated attempts, he was unable to hire an attorney. Sebring also notes other factors that impeded his efforts to prosecute this case: effects of criminal proceedings and anti-psychotic medications.

Pursuant to CCP § 473(b) the court has the power to afford the relief sought here. Sebring has shown the requisite mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. This motion was made within the statutory 6-month time period.

The motion is GRANTED. The August 26, 2025, order dismissing the action is vacated. A Case Management Conference is set for August 4, 2026, at 3:00 p.m. in Dept.

16. Sebring must serve defendants and file the proof of service no later than June 9, 2026.

Sebring must submit a written order to the court consistent with this ruling and in compliance with Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312. The signature block should read as follows: Curtis E.A. Karnow (Ret.) Judge of the Superior Court (Sonoma) on Assignment

3. 25CV02057, Looney v. Cedeno

Plaintiff Gary E. Looney dba Collectronics of California moves for an order compelling Defendant Rafael Cedeno, individually and dba Foreign Autohaus, dba A C Autohaus, to furnish responses to Plaintiff’s first set of post-judgment interrogatories and post-judgment demand for production of documents, and sanctions.

On March 20, 2026, Plaintiff filed an Acknowledgement of Satisfaction of Judgment indicating that the judgment has been satisfied in full. Accordingly, this motion is moot and is off calendar.

4. 25CV07011, Johnson v. Hopkins

Defendant Shannon Hopkins moves for an order striking the allegations for punitive damages in the complaint filed by Plaintiff Laurellee Johnson.

The complaint alleges that Hopkins drove a vehicle through a red light and into Johnson’s vehicle. Johnson alleges the impact caused severe property damage and physical injuries, and that after the accident Hopkins accelerated through another red light in an attempt to flee the scene and avoid liability. As a result, Johnson was left injured at the scene, bereft of medical assistance for an extended period of time which exacerbated Johnson’s physical and emotional injuries. The complaint alleges Hopkins was stopped a mile away by police officers and others. Complaint filed 10/8/2025, Exemplary Damages Attachment.

To obtain punitive damages at trial, a plaintiff must prove the defendant “has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.” CC § 3294.

“Malice” is conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others. CC § 3294(c)(1). “Oppression” is despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights. CC § 3294(c)(2). “Fraud” is also defined but is not pertinent here.

Hopkins argues the complaint does not plead facts to support a finding of oppression, fraud, or malice because it does not allege Hopkins intentionally collided with Johnson; and, at most, it alleges gross negligence, which is insufficient for punitive damages. Hopkins argues that allegations that she fled the scene are not true, in that she “was simply trying to find a safe place to pull over as to not block traffic or otherwise cause a new hazard.” Cited in support of these factual allegations are declarations executed by Hopkins and her spouse. Opp. at 6.

The facts asserted in the Opposition supported by declarations are irrelevant to this sort of motion to strike. Hopkins’ counsel knows this, so in the Reply she tries to avoid the accusation that she interposed patently improper material by writing the facts are simply for “context”. Reply at 1. This isn’t true. The extraneous facts were not provided for ‘context;’ counsel used them to argue there was no malice or oppression. Motion at 6. This extrinsic evidence is obviously improper. Weil & Brown, et al., California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial ¶¶ 7::169 ff. (Rutter: 2025). Neither opposing counsel nor the court should have to waste time addressing it.

There are two arguments actually based on the complaint.

The first is that generally we ought not to allow plaintiffs to plead anything they like in order to claim punitive damages. Reply at 1-2; 2-3. But, within the limits imposed by (i) rules of professional responsibility and (ii) the risk of sanctions for frivolous pleadings (CCP §128.7 (b)(3)), that is indeed the system we have. Figuring out the truth of allegations comes later in the process.

3