DOE vs RACHANDEEP SINGH, M.D., et al.

23CV007225: DOE vs RACHANDEEP SINGH, M.D., et al. 03/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Punitive Damages in Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 54

Tentative Ruling

Defendants Rachandeep Singh, M.D. (“Dr. Singh”) and Access Physicians, Inc.’s (“API”) (collectively, “Defendants”) motion to strike plaintiff Jane Doe’s (“Plaintiff”) punitive damages claim is DENIED as follows.

This action arises out of an alleged sexual assault by Dr. Singh against Plaintiff that occurred on April 26, 2023. Plaintiff filed her Complaint on August 22, 2023, against Dr. Singh, his company API, and the facility he directed, Danube River Holdings, LLC dba RiverPointe Post-Acute (“RiverPointe”), alleging causes of action for: (1) assault, (2) sexual battery, (3) battery, (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (5) sexual harassment, (6) negligent hiring and supervision, and (7) sex discrimination.

Plaintiff alleges she was employed by RiverPointe. On the date of the assault, she had just returned to work from a vacation in Mexico and was experiencing abdominal pain and nausea. Plaintiff further alleges that Dr. Singh offered to prescribe her an antibiotic, but stated that he needed to examine her first. During the examination, Dr. Singh allegedly began to grope Plaintiff’s breasts and attempted to have sexual intercourse with her. Plaintiff allegedly pushed Dr. Singh away and escaped to a nearby closet.

Plaintiff’s Complaint contains a prayer for punitive damages as to her first through fifth causes of action.

Defendants move to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages on the basis that Plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 425.13 because she did not obtain leave of court to include a claim for punitive damages in her Complaint against the Defendants who are health care providers. Defendants also argue Plaintiff has not sufficiently pled her claim under Civil Code section 3294(a).

Code of Civil Procedure section 435(b)(1) states, “Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof.” Similarly, California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1322 provides, a “notice of motion to strike must be given within the time allowed to plead.” Ordinarily, the time allowed to respond to a pleading is 30 days, unless extended by stipulation or court order. Here, Defendants responded to the Complaint by filing their Answer on October 13, 2023. This motion was not filed until exactly two years later on October 13, 2025. Thus, the motion is DENIED in its entirety as untimely.

Defendants rely upon section 436 to ask that the Court exercise its discretion to act on its own motion to strike the claim for punitive damages. Section 436 states, “The court

23CV007225: DOE vs RACHANDEEP SINGH, M.D., et al. 03/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Punitive Damages in Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 54

may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (b) Strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.”

The Court declines to exercise its discretion pursuant to section 436 to consider this belated motion, which was clearly brought as a tactical maneuver and presents an issue that could and should have been raised earlier.

As argued by Plaintiff in opposition, this motion evidences Defendants’ tactical decision not to raise this issue until the two-year deadline set forth in section 425.13 had expired. Plaintiff asserts the parties have extensively litigated this action and at no time did Defendants raise this issue, either via their Answer or by initiating meet-and-confer discussion regarding the same. Plaintiff argues the “Court should not reward parties for engaging in procedural ‘gotcha’ tactics rather than undertaking timely and good-faith meet-and-confer efforts.” (Opposition at 5:10-11.) The Court agrees.

The Court need not rule on the objections to the Declaration of Faith Wolinsky submitted in support of Defendants’ reply because the declaration was not material to the Court’s decision.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, or further notice is required.

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure 367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV007225: DOE vs RACHANDEEP SINGH, M.D., et al. 03/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Punitive Damages in Plaintiff's Complaint in Department 54

Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.Pdf

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.