NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Defendants' Motion to Strike

 

Defendants' Motion to Strike is denied.

 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Fariba Saadat, Carmelo Porto, and Keon Porto filed this habitability action against Kamyar Zare, Mitra Babai, Burton-Holt Condominium Association, Condominium Administration Company, Inc., and Burton-Holt Condominiums.

The causes of action are: (1) Breach of Contract: (2) Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability / Tenantability (CCC Sec. 1941.1 and H&S Code 17920.3 et seq.; (3) Breach of Implied Warranty of Quiet Enjoyment (CCC Sec. 1927); (4) Negligence (5) Nuisance; and (6) Constructive Eviction.

 

Defendants Zare and Babai (“Defendants”) filed a Motion to Strike, which Plaintiffs oppose.

LEGAL STANDARD

The court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. Code Civ. Proc., § 436(a). The court may also strike 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. Id., § 436(b). 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. Id. § 436. The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. Id. § 437.

ANALYSIS

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs fail to allege sufficient facts to support their claims for punitive and exemplary damages. Defendants further argue the Complaint fails to differentiate between them and the non-moving defendants in describing the alleged conduct.

To state a prima facie claim for punitive damages, a complaint must set forth the elements as stated in the general punitive damage statute, Civil Code Section 3294. Coll. Hosp., Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 721. These statutory elements include allegations that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. Civ. Code § 3294, subd. (a).

“Malice” is defined in Civil Code § 3294 to mean “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.” Civil Code § 3294(c)(1). “Oppression” means “despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights.” Civil Code § 3294(c)(2). As the court noted in College Hospital v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 713, Section 3294 was amended in 1987 to require that, where malice is based on a defendant’s conscious disregard of a plaintiff’s rights, the conduct must be both despicable and willful. The court further held that “despicable conduct refers to circumstances that are base, vile, or contemptible.” Id. at 725 (citation omitted). Such conduct has been described as “having the character of outrage frequently associated with crime.” Tomaselli v. Transamerica Ins. Co. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1287 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Further, “[t]here must be evidence that defendant acted with knowledge of the probable dangerous consequences to plaintiff’s interests and deliberately failed to avoid these consequences.” Flyer’s Body Shop Profit Sharing Plan v. Ticor Title Ins. Co. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1149, 1155.

A claim for punitive damages may not be based on conclusory allegations of oppression, fraud, or malice but instead must be based on factual allegations that support such a conclusion. See Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal. App. 4th 1033, 1041-1042 (Court of Appeal issued peremptory writ directing trial court to issue order striking plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages because “[t]he sole basis for seeking punitive damages are … conclusory allegations” which were “devoid of any factual assertions supporting a conclusion [defendants] acted with oppression, fraud or malice”).

A negligence claim generally will not support a claim for punitive damages, as negligence is an unintentional tort, and a negligent party has no desire to cause the harm that results from its conduct, differing from a party who has engaged in willful misconduct and intended to cause harm. Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166-167.

A tenant’s habitability action against the landlord for failure to remedy slum living conditions may be sufficient to support a claim for punitive damages. See, e.g., Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 903, 921 (Stoiber) (failure to correct defective living conditions sufficient for punitive damages claim; Rivera v. Sassoon (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1045, 1046 (affirming general, special, and punitive damages jury award for breach of the warranty of habitability, nuisance, and other torts). Punitive damages may be assessed against an employer where the employer authorized or ratified a malicious act. College Hospital Inc., supra,8 Cal.4th at. p 723.

“In order to survive a motion to strike an allegation of punitive damages, the ultimate facts showing an entitlement to such relief must be pled by a plaintiff. In passing on the correctness of a ruling on a motion to strike, judges read allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth. In ruling on a motion to strike, courts do not read allegations in isolation.” Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255. (citations omitted). “The mere allegation an intentional tort was committed is not sufficient to warrant an award of punitive damages. Not only must there be circumstances of oppression, fraud or malice, but facts must be alleged in the pleading to support such a claim.” Grieves v. Superior Ct. (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166 (fn. omitted) (citations omitted).

Here, Plaintiffs allege that their apartment suffered from water leaks, defective heating, and toxic mold. Compl. ¶ 19. In response to Plaintiffs’ complaints of putrid odor and excess moisture emanating from the guest bathroom, Defendants made temporary repairs without fixing the underlying issue. Compl. ¶ 13. Defendants failed to abate a bathroom water leak properly; instead, they patched and repainted the affected area. Compl. ¶ 14. Likewise, Defendants performed temporary repairs of a second leak in the kitchen sink, patching over the discoloration caused by the leak. Compl. ¶ 15. After Defendants refused Plaintiffs’ request for a mold inspection of the kitchen, Plaintiffs conducted their own mold inspection, which revealed the presence of toxic mold. Compl. ¶ 16. Defendants refused to hire professionals to remediate the mold. and instead sent their maintenance personnel to inspect the issue but refused to repair the plumbing due to the visible mold growth in the workspace. Ibid. Defendant’s encouraged Plaintiff’s to permanently vacate the Property if dissatisfied with the conditions. Compl. ¶ 17.

Based on these allegations, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has adequately pleaded punitive damages. In Stoiber, supra, (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 903, 920, the Court held Plaintiff adequately pleaded punitive damages where “[s]he alleged that defendant had actual knowledge of defective conditions in the premises including leaking sewage, deteriorated flooring, falling ceiling, leaking roof, broken windows, and other unsafe and dangerous conditions.” Here, despite knowing that the property contained toxic mold, Defendants refused to remediate it, forcing Plaintiffs to vacate the property. As in Stoiber, these allegations show that Defendants had knowledge of defective conditions of the property, and consciously disregarded these unsafe conditions. Accordingly, the motion to strike is denied.

 

CONCLUSION

Defendants' Motion to Strike is denied.