Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 23STCV05104, Date: 2024-05-02 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV05104 Hearing Date: May 2, 2024 Dept: 55
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:
Defendant Beach Front Property Management, Inc.’s Demurrer to Certain Causes of
Action Alleged in Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint; Defendant Beach Front
Property Management, Inc.’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint.
BACKGROUND
RANDOLPH SYDNOR, BILLY GOULETTE, MARY PALMER and
DONALD DUNCAN bring this case against BEACH FRONT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC. (“Defendant”)
for damages based on alleged substandard conditions at Plaintiffs’ apartments,
which are managed by Defendant. The causes
of action in the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) filed on 10/25/23 are: 1)
Negligent Violation of Statutory Duty; 2) Intentional Violation of Statutory
Duty; 3) Tortuous Breach of Warranty of Habitability; 4) Breach of Covenant of
Quiet Enjoyment; 5) Nuisance; 6) Negligence; 7) Intentional Infliction of
Emotional Distress; and 8) Constructive Eviction.
Defendant now demurs to the First through Seventh
Causes of Action in the FAC (i.e., all claims except the Eighth Cause of Action
for Constructive Eviction). Defendant also filed a motion to strike several allegations
in the FAC. Plaintiffs Mary Palmer and Donald Duncan (“Plaintiffs”) oppose the demurrer
and motion. Plaintiffs Randolph Sydnor and Billy Goulette, who are pro per as
of 2/6/24, did not file an opposition to the motions.
LEGAL STANDARD
Demurrers are to be sustained where a pleading fails
to plead adequately any essential element of the cause of action. Cantu v.
Resolution Trust Corp. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 857, 879-880. “[D]emurrers for
uncertainty are disfavored, and are granted only if the pleading is so
incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.” A.J. Fistes
Corp. v. GDL Best Contractors, Inc. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 677, 695
(internal quotation omitted).
The grounds for a motion to strike are that the
pleading has irrelevant, false or improper matter, or has not been drawn or
filed in conformity with laws. Code Civ. Proc., § 436. “Defects in pleadings
must operate to the prejudice of the opposite party; otherwise, denial of a
motion to strike presents no cause for reversal.” Starkweather v. Eddy
(1927) 87 Cal.App. 92, 96.
ANALYSIS
allegations are uncertain by omitting details, (4)
A. Demurrer
1. Negligence
Per Se- First and Second Causes of Action
Defendant claims the First and Second Causes of Action
for negligent/intentional violation of statutory duty amount to claims for negligence
per se, and negligence per se is not a separate claim.
There is a split of authority as to whether negligence
per se is a viable cause of action. See, e.g., Capolungo v. Bondi (1986)
179 Cal.App.3d 346, 349 (“In order for a claim of negligence per se to succeed,
all four elements must be met.”). But
see, e.g., Johnson v. Honeywell Intern. Inc. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 549,
555 (“‘negligence per se is not a separate cause of action, but creates an
evidentiary presumption that affects the standard of care in a cause of action
for negligence.’”).
Where there is a split of authority, trial courts have
discretion to choose between the decisions.
Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450,
456. Where there is a split of authority, “[a]s a practical matter, a superior
court ordinarily will follow an appellate opinion emanating from its own
district even though it is not bound to do so.” McCallum v. McCallum (1987)
190 Cal.App.3d 308, 316, fn.4.
Here, the Court exercises its discretion to follow the
line of authorities recognizing negligence per se as a claim and thus rejects
Defendant’s argument that the claims are subject to demurrer.
2. Statute
of Limitations – First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Causes
of Action
Defendant contends that “portions” of each of the
claims in the demurrer are time barred. The initial Complaint was filed 3/7/23,
and Defendant contends that the alleged violations of the cited statutes and
resulting damages that predate 3/7/20 as alleged in the claims in the FAC are
barred by the applicable two or three-year limitation period.
“[T]o prevail on a demurrer based on the statute of
limitations, a defendant must establish the entire cause of action is
untimely.” Pointe San Diego Residential Community, L.P. v. Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves
& Savitch, LLP (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 265, 274. Demurrers do not lie as
to only parts of causes of action, where some valid claim is alleged. Poizner
v. Fremont General Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 119 (“A demurrer must
dispose of an entire cause of action to be sustained.”). Accordingly, Defendant’s
contention that “portions” of the claims are time-barred, even if true, does
not constitute a cognizable basis on which to sustain a demurrer.
3. Uncertain
and Ambiguous-First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Causes of Action
Defendant contends that these claims are impermissibly
uncertain and ambiguous because Plaintiffs failed to specify which conditions
were cited, by which government agency and by what citation.
Regarding uncertainty, “[t]here is no need to require
specificity in the pleadings because ‘modern discovery procedures necessarily
affect the amount of detail that should be required in a pleading.’” Ludgate
Ins. Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 592, 608. The allegations
in the FAC, taken as a whole, provide ample information to Defendant as to the
claims alleged against Defendant. Defendant can obtain the details it seeks
through discovery.
Hence, the Court overrules the demurrer as to
uncertainty and ambiguity.
4. Nuisance-
Fifth Cause of Action
Defendant also argues that the Fifth Cause of Action
for nuisance fails because such a claim does not lie against a property manager
like Defendant. Defendant contends, without any legal support, that a nuisance
claim only exists as between tenants and their neighbors. This is not correct. An
uninhabitable condition may amount to a nuisance. Cal. Practice Guide: Landlord
and Tenant (The Rutter Group 2023) § 3:132. Because the FAC attributes
uninhabitable conditions to Defendant, the nuisance claim is viable, without
any requirement to sue neighbors.
Thus, the Court overrules the demurrer as to the nuisance
claim.
5. Intentional
Infliction of Emotional Distress- Seventh Cause of Action
According to Defendant, the Seventh Cause of Action fails
to allege extreme and outrageous conduct, which is one of the elements of the claim.
A court concluded that a tenant sufficiently stated a cause of action for
intentional infliction of emotional distress, by alleging extreme emotional
distress as a result of a landlord’s and property manager’s intentional
failures to correct uninhabitable conditions of the premises. See Burnett v.
Chimney Sweep (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1069. The instant FAC alleges
similarly, see Paragraphs 15, 17-18, 67-68.
Thus, the Court overrules the demurrer as to
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.
B. Motion
to Strike
1. Habitability
Allegations
Defendant moves to strike most of the allegations in
Paragraph 14 of the FAC detailing alleged substandard conditions at the
apartment building. Defendant argues that these allegations do not relate to
habitability.
“‘Where a motion to strike is so broad as to include
relevant matters, the motion should be denied in its entirety.’” Triodyne,
Inc. v. Superior Court (1966) 240 Cal.App.2d 536, 542. Further, a court erred in striking from a
complaint allegations material to lay foundation for the relief, even though
not essential to the claim. Cal. Farm & Fruit Co. v. Schiappa-Pietra
(1907) 151 Cal. 732, 745, superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Resure,
Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 156, 165.
For breach of the warranty of habitability tenants are
entitled to a reduction of rent corresponding to the reduced value of the
premises, except for minor violations not materially affecting the tenants’
health and safety. Hyatt v. Tedesco (2002) 96 Cal.App.4thSupp. 62, 67 (Hyatt).
Here, the motion to strike is overbroad because it
seeks to strike allegations that do not affect apartment habitability, like
unavailable televisions and laundry cleaning machines. Specifically, the
instant FAC alleges much more than just a habitability claim, including some
conditions affecting health and safety, as to which non-habitability
allegations are permissible as related factual background or sometimes
supportive elements of other alleged claims. See FAC, ¶¶ 14-17. For instance, the
habitability conditions caused “skin sores and rashes” requiring medications.
Ibid. at ¶ 18. While the FAC also alleges loss of television and clothes
washing, that still could be material to other claims. For example, a cause of
action for constructive eviction includes tenants deprived of the beneficial
enjoyment the premises for a substantial time. E.g., Groh v. Kover's Bull
Pen, Inc. (1963) 221 Cal. App. 2d 611, 614.
Therefore, the Court denies the motion as to striking
allegations that would not materially affect tenants’ health and safety.
2. Remedies
Defendant seeks to strike allegations related to types
of relief requested in Plaintiffs’ Third Cause of Action for Tortuous Breach of
Warranty of Habitability, Fourth Cause of Action for Breach of the Implied
Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment, Eighth Cause of Action for Construction Eviction,
and prayer for relief. Defendant contends that Plaintiffs have requested unauthorized
types of relief (tort damages, full rent refund, attorneys’ fees, treble
damages and punitive damages).
a. Tort
Damages
Defendant contends that only contract damages are
available for breach of the warranty of habitability. A court errs in striking
a prayer for damages where the plaintiff sufficiently stated a supportive cause
of action, such as a statutory violation. Ruiz v. Musclewood Inv.
Properties, LLC (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 15, 24–25.
“[T]he tenant’s remedies against the landlord are not
limited to breach of the warranty of habitability and he may also plead tort
actions,…” Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal. App. 3d 903, 929. Cf. Fairchild
v. Park (2001) 90 Cal. App. 4th 919, 925 (complaint only concerned contract
damages “after the trial court ruled on the landlord's demurrer and motion to
strike, the tenants were no longer seeking, or entitled to, tort relief on the
habitability claim.”). Emotional distress damages are available under Civil
Code Section 1942.4. McNairy v. C.K. Realty (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1500,
1502. A claim may lie against a landlord for negligence due to violation of a
duty to maintain habitable conditions. Erlach v. Sierra Asset Servicing, LLC
(2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1299.
Here, because the FAC contains several tort
allegations, such as Negligence and Intentional Infliction of Emotional
Distress, it properly supports tort damages.
Thus, the motion is denied as to tort damages.
b. Rent
Refund
Defendant argues that only a limited amount of rent is
recoverable as damages.
Because law allows a partial refund of rent (e.g., Hyatt,
supra, 96 Cal.App.4thSupp. 62, 67), the motion overly broadly seeks to
strike statements of rent recovery that are at least partly correct under the
law. Additionally, the FAC does not allege entitlement to recover all the rent
paid.
The motion is denied as to striking rent refunding as a
type of recoverable damages.
c. Attorneys’
Fees
Defendants contend that attorneys’ fees are not
authorized by the cited statutes. Attorneys’ fees issues in habitability cases
generally have been pursuant to Municipal Code sections or contract provisions.
E.g., Larson v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th
1263, 1297.
However, there is no requirement for pleading
attorneys’ fees. Unsupported attorneys’ fees allegations need not be stricken
pursuant to a motion to strike, because later discovery may reveal a basis for
their recovery. Camenisch v. Sup. Ct.
(1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1689, 1699. “There is no requirement that a party plead
that it is seeking attorney fees, and there is no requirement that the ground
for a fee award be specified in the pleadings.”
Yassin v. Solis (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 524, 533.
The motion is denied as to fees.
d. Treble
Damages
Contrary to Defendant’s argument, the FAC does not
allege the remedy of treble damages. Governing law reveals that treble damages
would not be authorized for the instant claims, but the issue is moot because
Plaintiffs do not seek such damage in the FAC.
e. Punitive
Damages
Defendant asserts that punitive damages are not
supported.
Depending on the circumstances, tenants may recover
punitive damages related to breach of the warranty of habitability. Cal. Prac.
Guide: Cal. Landlord and Tenants (The Rutter Group 2023) § 3:102.
Here, Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged some
habitability conditions affecting health and safety that Defendant
intentionally left uncorrected, in support of punitive damages.
The motion is denied as to punitive damages.
CONCLUSION
The demurrer is overruled, and the motion is denied. Twenty
days to answer.