Judge: Andrew E. Cooper, Case: 23CHCV02438, Date: 2025-04-09 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: 23CHCV02438    Hearing Date: April 9, 2025    Dept: F51

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F-51

MOTION TO STRIKE

Motion Filed: 2/24/25

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Park Sierra Properties; and Geoff Palmer (collectively, “Moving Defendants”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Ingrid Mendoza; Raymond Mendoza; and Camila Mendoza (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)

NOTICE: OK

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

TENTATIVE RULING: The unopposed motion is denied. Moving Defendants to file and serve their answer to Plaintiffs’ complaint within 20 days.

BACKGROUND 

This is a habitability action in which Plaintiffs allege that on 8/1/21, they leased certain residential property owned and managed by Moving Defendants, located at 18335 Jakes Way, Apt. 203, Santa Clarita, California 91387. (Compl. ¶¶ 4–9, 17.) Plaintiffs allege that shortly after moving into the subject premises, they discovered cockroach and bedbug infestations that caused them injuries. (Id. at ¶¶ 19–57.)

On 8/7/23, Plaintiffs filed their complaint, alleging against five named defendants the following causes of action: (1) Battery; (2) Negligence; (3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (4) Statutory Breach of Warranty of Habitability; (5) Tortious Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability; (6) Violation of Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.; (7) Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment; (8) Violation of Civil Code § 1942.3; (9) Violation of Civil Code § 1942.4; (10) Negligent Violation of Statutory Duty to Maintain Habitable Conditions; (11) Breach of Contract; (12) Private Nuisance; and (13) Public Nuisance.

On 2/24/25, Moving Defendants filed the instant motion to strike. No opposition has been filed to date.

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

“Before filing a motion to strike pursuant to this chapter, the moving party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion to strike for the purpose of determining if an agreement can be reached that resolves the objections to be raised in the motion to strike.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 435.5, subd. (a).) “The moving party shall file and serve with the motion to strike a declaration stating … The means by which the moving party met and conferred with the party who filed the pleading subject to the motion to strike, and that the parties did not reach an agreement resolving the objections raised by the motion to strike.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 435.5, subd. (a)(3).)

Here, Moving Defendants’ counsel declares that on 2/24/25, she sent Plaintiffs’ counsel a meet and confer letter regarding the issues raised in the instant motion, but received no response. (Decl. of Connie Chen ¶ 4.) 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 in non-contract actions 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.)

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.)

Here, Moving Defendants argue that “Plaintiffs' complaint consists primarily of conclusory statements rather than specific factual allegations demonstrating that Defendants acted with malice or intent. The Plaintiffs have not provided a detailed account of how Defendants’ conduct constituted battery, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, any breach of warranty of habitability, or the covenant of quiet enjoyment, as asserted in their first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and seventh causes of action, respectively.” (MTS 7:12–17.) “Plaintiff puts forth no true facts reflecting Defendants intentionally performed any action, or inaction, in order to cause injury to Plaintiff or in a conscious disregard for the rights and safety of Plaintiff. Plaintiff puts forth no true facts Defendants intended to cause any type of harm to Plaintiffs.” (Id. at 8:15–17.) “At most, Plaintiffs’ allegations show an annoyance and tort for delay to make any repairs to alleged habitability defects.” (Id. at 10:2–3.)

Based on a review of Plaintiffs’ factual allegations, the Court finds that the complaint, as pled, sufficiently pleads a basis for punitive damages against Moving Defendants as a “conscious disregard for the rights or safety of others” based on Defendants’ failure to remediate the mold issue at the subject premises. (Compl. ¶¶ 19–57, Civ. Code § 3294, subd. (c).) Accordingly, the Court finds that at this stage, Moving Defendants’ alleged conduct as pled may be considered malicious, oppressive, or fraudulent as defined by Civil Code section 3294. Further investigation of the merits of Plaintiffs’ allegations may be resolved through the discovery process. Accordingly, the Court denies the motion to strike portions of Plaintiffs’ complaint referencing punitive damages.

CONCLUSION 

The unopposed motion is denied. Moving Defendants to file and serve their answer to Plaintiffs’ complaint within 20 days.