Shekarlab v. County of Sacramento et al

Filing 33

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 5/9/2018 DISMISSING Plaintiff's claims for punitive damages on his state law claims as to all Defendants for the reasons set forth in this order. (Fabillaran, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

RAMIN SHEKARLAB,

10
11
12
13

No.

2:18-cv-47-JAM-EFB

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER DISMISSING PUNITIVE
DAMAGES ON STATE CLAIMS

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15

On April 26, 2018, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s punitive

16

damages claim against Defendant Charles Kim.

17

Court also ordered Plaintiff to show cause as to why the punitive

18

damages claims against the other Defendants should not also be

19

dismissed, as to the state claims.

20

which opposes dismissal.

21

Plaintiff seeks modification of the current scheduling order.

22

Plaintiff also requests an order stating that Plaintiff is not

23

prohibited from undertaking discovery on issues pertaining to

24

punitive damages.

25

ECF No. 26.

The

Plaintiff filed his response,

Response, ECF No. 30.

Alternatively,

The Court finds the punitive damages sought in relation to

26

Plaintiff’s two state law claims are barred by California Code of

27

Civil Procedure § 425.13.

28

in this code section conflict with this Court’s scheduling order

Plaintiff argues that the time limits

1

1

because Plaintiff will need to file its motion before expert

2

discovery takes place.

3

to explain why expert testimony is necessary to establish

4

Defendants’ “malice, oppression, or fraud.”

5

Ct., 21 Cal. App. 4th 847, 854–55 (1992).

6

find the hypothetical conflict warrants departure from the

7

reasoning and conclusions in its previous dismissal order and

8

does not warrant modification of the scheduling order at this

9

time.

Response at 2.

However, Plaintiff fails

See Aquino v. Super.
The Court does not

This ruling is without prejudice to a later motion

10

regarding scheduling after discovery has progressed and Plaintiff

11

is able to present a sufficient factual and legal basis for

12

modification.

13

The Court declines to issue an order regarding the scope of

14

discovery.

15

Defendants will oppose discovery related to punitive damages.

16

Response at 3.

17

should seek the discovery he believes he is entitled to and any

18

opposition from Defendants may be addressed by the appropriate

19

discovery motions before the magistrate judge.

20

Rule 302(c).

21

Plaintiff’s request is based on a belief that

This issue, too, is hypothetical.

Plaintiff

See E.D. Local

For the reasons set forth above, and in the Court’s Order

22

Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 26, Plaintiff’s

23

claims for punitive damages on his state law claims are DISMISSED

24

as to all Defendants.

25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 9, 2018

27
28
2