Cases from cite.case.law:

SCALIA, v. COUNTY OF KERN,, 308 F. Supp. 3d 1064 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

. . . Code § 425.13(a). . . . Nevertheless, the Court finds that Section 425.13 is inapplicable here. . . . Section 425.13 does not supplant those." Id. at 1353 (citing Cent. Pathology Serv. Med. . . . Cal. 1997) ("[S]ection 425.13 is a procedural rule for managing and directing pleadings: it does not . . . Code § 425.13. . . .

ESTATE OF PRASAD, PRASAD T. P. a A. P. a v. COUNTY OF SUTTER J. I D. O., 958 F. Supp. 2d 1101 (E.D. Cal. 2013)

. . . Civil Proc.Code § 425.13. (Sutter Defs.’ Mot. 18:26-27.) . . . Pro.Code § 425.13(a). . . . Federal district courts have divided on whether § 425.13 applies in federal court. . . . , making § 425.13 inapplicable in federal court. . . . Code § 425.13, making § 425.13 inapplicable in federal court. . . .

GEORGE, v. SONOMA COUNTY SHERIFF S DEPT., 732 F. Supp. 2d 922 (N.D. Cal. 2010)

. . . P. § 425.13(a). Plaintiffs argue that section 425.13 does not apply in federal court. . . . In Jackson, the district court addressed the application of section 425.13 to the plaintiffs state law . . . The Jackson court determined that section 425.13 was procedural, and “essentially a method of managing . . . Further, the court found that section 425.13 was not so “intimately bound up” with state substantive . . . Thus, the Jackson court determined that section 425.13 did not apply to the state law claims asserted . . .

STEEL IV, v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO,, 726 F. Supp. 2d 1172 (S.D. Cal. 2010)

. . . East Bay Hospital, 980 F.Supp. 1341, 1352 (N.D.Cal.1997) (holding California Civil Code § 425.13, which . . .

C. JONES, v. KRAUTHEIM, M. D., 208 F. Supp. 2d 1173 (D. Colo. 2002)

. . . . § 425.13 requires a showing of substantial probability of prevailing on the claim. . . . .

BURROWS, v. REDBUD COMMUNITY HOSPITAL DISTRICT,, 188 F.R.D. 356 (N.D. Cal. 1997)

. . . Section 425.13 provides that in an action for damages “arising out of the professional negligence of . . . Furthermore, the Jackson court noted that California courts themselves have held section 425.13 to be . . . The Court concludes that section 425.13 does not apply to a claim for exemplary damages under EMTALA. . . . As discussed above, section 425.13 is a procedural rule for managing and directing pleadings: it does . . . As such, EMTALA does not incorporate section 425.13. . . .

JACKSON, v. EAST BAY HOSPITAL,, 980 F. Supp. 1341 (N.D. Cal. 1997)

. . . Proc. § 425.13(a). . . . Defendant Ollada claims that section 425.13 should be applied pursuant to Wray v. . . . Section 425.13 does not supplant those. . . . Proc. § 425.13. . . . . See discussion, infra., Part III.A, on procedural nature of section 425.13. . . . .