Judge: Andrew E. Cooper, Case: 23CHCV02247, Date: 2024-06-06 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F51, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2251.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 23CHCV02247    Hearing Date: June 6, 2024    Dept: F51

MOTIONS TO STRIKE

Motions Filed: 12/8/23

MOVING PARTY: Defendants KW Santa Clarita Townhomes, LLC; and Greystar California, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Gloria Muniz; Genesis Richards; Ameenah Richards; and Pilar Richards (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)

NOTICE: OK

RELIEF REQUESTED: Defendants move to strike references relating to punitive damages from Plaintiffs’ complaint.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motions are denied. Defendants to file and serve their answers to Plaintiffs’ complaint within 30 days.

BACKGROUND 

This is a habitability action in which Plaintiffs are a mother and her three minor children residing in a rental home located at 18241 W. Terra Verde Place, Santa Clarita CA 91387. (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 15.) Defendants are the owners and managers of the subject property. (Id. at ¶ 19.) Plaintiffs allege that “as a result of Defendants’ failure to properly maintain the Subject Property, which is multiunit complex, Plaintiffs were forced to endure ongoing filthy infestations, including, but not limited to, bed bugs and other deplorable conditions.” (Id. at ¶ 4.)

On 7/8/23, Plaintiffs filed their complaint, alleging against Defendants the following causes of action: (1) Breach of Warranty of Habitability; (2) Breach of Warranty of Habitability; (3) Negligence; (4) Nuisance; (5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (6) Breach of Contract; (7) Unfair Business Practices; and (8) Fraudulent Concealment.

On 12/8/23, Defendants filed the instant motions to strike. On 5/22/24, Plaintiffs filed their oppositions. On 5/29/24, Defendants filed their replies.

//

//

//

ANALYSIS

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, subd. (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, subd. (b).) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Id., § 437.)

A.    Meet and Confer

Defendants’ counsel declares that on 11/30/23, she met and conferred with Plaintiffs’ counsel regarding the issues raised in the instant motions, but the parties were unable to informally resolve the issues. (Decl. of Samantha Van Der Wall ¶ 2.) The Court therefore finds that counsel has satisfied the preliminary meet and confer requirements under Code of Civil Procedure section 435.5, subdivision (a).

B.     Punitive Damages

Punitive damages may be recovered upon a proper showing of malice, fraud, or oppression by clear and convincing evidence. (Civ. Code § 3294, subd. (a).) “Malice” is defined as conduct intended to cause injury to a person or despicable conduct carried on with a willful and conscious disregard for the rights or safety of others. (Id. at subd. (c); Turman v. Turning Point of Cent. Cal., Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63.) “Oppression” means despicable conduct subjecting a person to cruel and unjust hardship, in conscious disregard of the person’s rights. (Ibid.) “Fraud” is an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known by defendant, with intent to deprive a person of property, rights or otherwise cause injury. (Ibid.)

1.      Malice, Fraud, or Oppression

Punitive damages must be supported by factual allegations. Conclusory allegations, devoid of any factual assertions, are insufficient to support a conclusion that parties acted with oppression, fraud or malice. (Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1042; Anschutz Entertainment Group, Inc. v. Snepp (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 598, 643.)

In the complaint, Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that they discovered the bedbug infestation in June 2022, notified Defendants’ agents, but “despite Plaintiffs’ many requests … at no time have Defendants offered reimbursements for relocation expenses, replacement costs to Plaintiffs, or allowed the Plaintiffs a reasonable off-set for the harms and losses each has sustained as a result of the known bed bug infestations. In fact, when Plaintiffs’ pleas for help from Defendants to affectively [sic] address the bed bug infestation at the Plaintiffs’ Unit, Defendants failed to abate the bed bugs for extended periods of time.” (Compl. ¶ 30.) “Defendants [were] aware of the bed bug infestation at the complex affected multiple units for extended period, as prior tenants’ complaint about the bed bug infestation in their units. Defendants failed to abate the bed bug infestation from the Subject property and Subject Units. Additionally, Defendants failed to provide notice to Plaintiffs about the widespread bed bug infestation at the apartment complex prior to June 2022.” (Id. at ¶ 31.) “As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ failure to maintain the Premises in a safe, habitable condition, Plaintiffs continue to suffer ongoing emotional and physical injuries, including, but not limited to: (a) Painful bed bug bites, Severe skin rash, allergic reaction, scarring and personal injuries over the entirety of their body caused by bed bugs; (b) Property damage to bed, mattress, bedding, furniture, clothing, and personal belongings, as a result of bed bug infestation; (c) Relocation expenses, pest control fees, loss of earnings, and attorney fees; (d) Plaintiffs became ill several times while living in the Subject Property, experiencing ongoing insect bites, sleeplessness, inconvenience, humiliation, grief, anxiety and other symptoms.” (Id. at ¶ 6.)

Here, Defendants argue that “Plaintiffs’ conclusory and, indeed, pure recitation of the legal elements required to satisfy pleading punitive damages is improper.” (MTS 7:16–17.) “Additionally, Plaintiffs fail to identify any employee or managing agent of [each] defendant … who specifically engaged in conduct warranting exemplary damages.” (Id. at 7:27–28.)

In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that “the basis for Plaintiffs’ prayer for punitive damages is the Defendant’s relationship with Plaintiffs (landlord and tenant), Defendant’s failure to notify Plaintiffs of the bedbugs despite knowing about them, Defendant’s failure to act in a timely and effective manner once Plaintiffs notified Defendants of the bedbugs, Defendant’s failure to hire effective pest control, their failure to abate the infestation, and their collection of rent monies despite all this.” (Pls.’ Opp. at 5:9–13, citing Compl. ¶¶ 4, 43, 48, 52, 57, 106, 108.)

On reply, Defendants maintain that Plaintiffs’ allegations are not pled with the requisite specificity, for example, “Which of the two named defendants had actual knowledge? Which agent or employee of which defendant possessed such knowledge? These are the kinds of basic, factual pleadings required to sufficiently put [each Defendant] on notice of the punitive damages claims alleged against it.” (Defs.’ Reply 2:19–22.)

Based on a review of Plaintiffs’ factual allegations, the Court finds that the Complaint, as pled, sufficiently pleads a basis for punitive damages against Defendants based on malice or oppression. As Plaintiffs contend, the Complaint sufficiently alleges that Defendants, through their agents/employees, had actual knowledge about the bedbug infestation at the subject property, yet failed to remediate the issue. (Compl. at ¶¶ 28–31.) This alleged conduct sufficiently supports a prayer for punitive damages as a “conscious disregard for the rights or safety of others.” (Civ. Code § 3294, subd. (c).)

Accordingly, the Court finds that at this stage, Defendants’ alleged conduct as pled may be considered malicious and oppressive as defined by Civil Code section 3294. Further investigation of the merits of Plaintiffs’ allegations may be resolved through the discovery process.

2.      Employer Liability

“An employer shall not be liable for [punitive] damages … based upon acts of an employee of the employer, unless the employer had advance knowledge of the unfitness of the employee and employed him or her with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others or authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct for which the damages are awarded or was personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. With respect to a corporate employer, the advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, ratification or act of oppression, fraud, or malice must be on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation.” (Civ. Code § 3294, subd. (b).)

In their complaint, Plaintiffs name two individuals who were on-site managing agents of Defendants during the relevant time period, to whom Plaintiffs gave notice of the bedbug infestation. (Compl. ¶ 28.) Plaintiffs further allege that “those in the management department, were acting as agents, employees, management and supervisorial employees of the Defendant,” and “said Defendants authorized, ratified or approved the conduct of these officers or managing agents of the Defendants.” (Id. at ¶¶ 83–84.)

Here, Defendants argue that “Plaintiffs do not allege an employee of [each] defendant … was unfit for his or her position or that one of [the] … corporate leaders engaged in some wrongful conduct.” (MTS 9:1–3.) In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that they have sufficiently pled that “at all relevant times, any employees were acting as management and supervisorial employees of the Defendants,” and that “Defendants authorized, ratified or approved the conduct of these officers or managing agents of the Defendants. These unlawful acts were further ratified by said Defendants and done with a conscious disregard for the Plaintiff’s rights and with the intent, design and purpose of injuring the Plaintiff.” (Pls.’ Opp. 7:10–20, citing Compl. ¶¶ 83–84.)

Upon review of the Plaintiffs’ factual allegations in the Complaint, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that they have sufficiently alleged that Defendants ratified/approved of the allegedly wrongful conduct of their agents and/or employees. The Court again notes that further investigation of the merits of Plaintiffs’ allegations may be resolved through the discovery process. Accordingly, the Court denies Defendants’ motion to strike portions of Plaintiffs’ complaint referencing punitive damages.

CONCLUSION 

The motions to strike are denied. Defendants to file and serve their answers to Plaintiffs’ complaint within 30 days.