Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 23STCV24851, Date: 2024-02-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV24851    Hearing Date: February 29, 2024    Dept: 52

Defendants Baldwin Apartment LLC and Fachoy LLC dba Management Rental Group’s Motion to Strike

            Defendants Baldwin Apartment LLC and Fachoy LLC dba Management Rental Group move to strike 10 portions of the first amended complaint by plaintiffs Marlene Barton, Latisha Todd, Linda Craig, Robert Craig, Joleiyauh Burnett, Oleiyauh Burnett, Briana Segovia, Logan Pledger, Kendyll Pledger, Steven Mullins, Brenda Arrington, Marilyn Bagby, and Sonya Bagby.

            Defendants move to strike portions of the complaint related to punitive damages.  Courts may strike a “demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.10, subd. (b)(3).)  Courts may strike allegations regarding punitive damages 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.) 

Plaintiffs allege sufficient facts for 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).)  “To support an award of punitive damages on the basis of conscious disregard of the safety of others, a plaintiff ‘must establish that the defendant was aware of the probable dangerous consequences of his conduct, and that he willfully and deliberately failed to avoid those consequences.’ ”  (Penner v. Falk (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 858, 867.)  Knowing of and failing to correct “long existing physical conditions of the premises which portend danger for the tenants” may constitute malice.  (Ibid.; accord Nolin v. National Convenience Stores, Inc. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 279, 288 [sufficient evidence of malice where defendant’s “inattention to the danger showed a complete lack of concern regarding the harmful potential—the probability and likelihood of injury” resulting from dangerous conditions on its premises].)

Plaintiffs allege, “Throughout the entirety of Plaintiffs’ tenancy, the Subject Property was rife with pervasive, serious, and uninhabitable conditions, including but not limited to ceiling collapses, water intrusions, cracking/peeling paint and water deposits on and inside of the walls, broken and unrepaired fixtures, pest and vermin infestations, plumbing/sewage issues, unsanitary and worn flooring.”  (FAC, ¶ 19.)  The insects and pests allegedly “crawl onto Plaintiffs’ bodies when they are asleep, deposit their excrement throughout the Subject Property, and cause rashes, skin eruptions, and other ailments among Plaintiffs.”  (¶ 22.) 

The first amended complaint alleges defendants knew about and failed to correct these dangerous conditions.  “Despite Plaintiffs’ persistent complaints over multiple years concerning each of their respective units, said complaints fell on deaf ears and Defendants either failed to repair[] or only provided ‘Band-Aid’ repairs that were inadequate to fully and finally address each issue.”  (¶ 21.)  Regarding ceiling collapses and water intrusions, plaintiffs allege, “Instead of attempting to determine the cause of said intrusions and repair the issues, Defendants have only provided Band-Aid repairs, if any, of simply painting over the unsightly discoloration.”  (¶ 23.) 

Plaintiffs further allege, “Plaintiffs have complained to Defendants about the severe and detrimental impact that the conditions at the Subject Property have on Plaintiffs in their daily lives.  Defendants failed to comply with local ordinances, laws, and standards in spite of Plaintiffs’ complaints.  Defendants, at all times, had the power to make changes to their actions, including employment of abatement measures, but refused to take corrective and/or curative measures in spite of actual knowledge of the substandard conditions with a conscious disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights, health and/or safety.”  (¶ 26.) 

These factual allegations can reasonably be characterized as despicable conduct carried on with a willful and conscious disregard of plaintiffs’ rights or safety.

Defendants also argue plaintiffs do not specifically allege which defendant did what.  Most of the first amended complaint’s allegations refer to the plural “Defendants” without differentiating between them.  When liberally construed, however, the first amended complaint alleges all defendants did everything it alleges.  On a motion to strike, the court must accept those allegations as true.

Disposition

Defendants Baldwin Apartment LLC and Fachoy LLC dba Management Rental Group’s motion to strike is denied.  Defendants shall answer the first amended complaint within 20 days.