Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 23STCV11576, Date: 2023-10-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV11576    Hearing Date: October 25, 2023    Dept: 52

Defendant A. Julia Gomez’s Motion to Strike Portions of Complaint

            Defendant A. Julia Gomez, trustee of the A. Julia Gomez Family Trust, Dated January 8, 2003, moves to strike plaintiff Oscar Alberto Servellon Torres’s allegations related to punitive damages.  Courts may strike such allegations where the facts alleged “do not rise to the level of malice, oppression or fraud necessary” to recover punitive damages under Civil Code section 3294.  (Turman v. Turning Point of Central California, Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 64.)           

Plaintiff alleges sufficient facts to constitute malice or oppression.  “ ‘Malice’ means 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.”  (Civ. 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.” (Civ. Code, § 3294(c)(2).) 

The complaint alleges repeated cockroach infestations, among other habitability problems, at the apartment plaintiff leased from defendant.  (¶¶ 15-17, 19-29.)  The complaint specifically alleges that in 2020, “[t]he Housing Department issued” two “Notices and Orders to Comply” at the property, but “multiple violations were not abated within 35 days of these notices.”  (¶ 15.)  It further alleges the Health Department cited defendant for violations at the property on nine dates from 2016 to 2022.  (¶ 16.)  Plaintiff alleges, “Defendants were ordered to address the infestation of cockroaches in the Subject Property on August 18, 2023, September 14, 2018, January 29, 2019, July 19, 2022 and August 5, 2022, before the inception of Plaintiff’s tenancy and thereafter.  The infestation continues unabated.”  (Ibid.)

Plaintiff alleges that due to the infestation, “he had to seek medical treatment” because “a cockroach enter[ed] his ear.”  (¶ 20.)  “The cockroaches nest inside Plaintiff’s electrical appliances and contaminate his food supplies.  They crawl onto Plaintiff’s body when he is asleep, deposit their excrement throughout the Subject Property and Plaintiff’s unit and cause rashes, skin eruptions, and other ailments to Plaintiff.”  (¶ 22.)

Plaintiff alleges defendant knew about the infestation but did not fix it.  He alleges he made “persistent complaints about the infestations.”  (¶ 23.)  He alleges he “notified the Defendants and their agents about the habitability violations.”  (¶ 24.)  “In spite of numerous Notices and Orders to Comply from government entities, Defendants have failed to correct the cited deficiencies throughout the Subject Property.”  (¶ 25.)  He further alleges defendant “refused to take corrective and/or curative measures in spite of actual knowledge of the substandard conditions.”  (¶ 26.) 

The complaint alleges, “Defendants had actual knowledge of the infestations occurring within Plaintiff’s unit and in the entire Subject Property, given the cited infestations and orders to abate the infestations going back to 2018, years before Plaintiff’s tenancy, but failed to notify Plaintiff of the infestation, and rented Plaintiff the premises in an infested state despite actual notice of its condition.”  (¶ 27.)  Finally, it alleges, “Defendants knew that the Subject Property was not fit for human occupation, but made the conscious decision to subject Plaintiff to the substandard and illegal living conditions therein solely for monetary gain.”  (¶ 29.) 

Defendant argues these allegations do not rise to the level of “despicable” conduct.  “[A]bsent an intent to injure the plaintiff, ‘malice’ requires more than a ‘willful and conscious’ disregard of the plaintiffs’ interests.  The additional component of ‘despicable conduct’ must be found.”  (College Hospital Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 725.)  “Used in its ordinary sense, the adjective ‘despicable’ is a powerful term that refers to circumstances that are ‘base,’ ‘vile,’ or ‘contemptible.’ ”  (Ibid.) 

At the pleading stage, allegations that defendants knew of and failed to remediate unsafe conditions over a period of several years suffices to constitute despicable conduct done in conscious disregard of plaintiff’s right to habitable housing and of plaintiff’s safety.  The court cannot rule that, as a matter of law, such conduct is not despicable, malicious, or oppressive.  A reasonable trier of fact could reach that conclusion.

Defendant also argues plaintiff’s allegations about citations predating his tenancy cannot support punitive damages.  As plaintiff argues, these allegations support a conclusion that defendant’s purported conduct was despicable because she knew about uninhabitable conditions for years.  That she allegedly knew the property was not habitable even before renting it to plaintiff bolsters the claim for punitive damages. 

Finally, defendant argues punitive damages are not available for plaintiff’s first cause of action for violation of Civil Code section 1942.4 or his fourth cause of action for violation of Business & Professions Code section 17200.  But defendant only moves to strike portions of the complaint included in the general factual allegations (¶¶ 13, 27, 29) and in the prayer for relief (prayer, ¶ 7).  The allegations regarding punitive damages are not tethered to any causes of action that do not permit recovery of punitive damages.

Defendant A. Julia Gomez, trustee of the A. Julia Gomez Family Trust, Dated January 8, 2003’s motion to strike portions of plaintiff’s complaint is denied.  Defendant is ordered to answer within 20 days.