Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 24STCV08368, Date: 2024-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Please notify Department 52 via email at smcdept52@lacourt.org and indicate that the parties are submitting on the tentative ruling. Please provide the attorney's name and represented party. Please notify the opposing side via email if submitting on the Court's tentative ruling.

Case Number: 24STCV08368    Hearing Date: October 24, 2024    Dept: 52

Defendants’ Motion to Strike Portions of Complaint             

Defendants A/P Prop., LTD., Lawrence John Deovlet, Phylis Deovlet, Landmark Realty Services, LLC, Garry A. Hartunian, and Francisca Capila move to strike 15 portions of plaintiffs’ complaint.  The 15 portions of the complaint defendants target concern 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).) 

A. Fraud, Oppression, or Malice

            Plaintiffs allege sufficient facts to constitute malice or oppression by each defendant.  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 defendants knew of and refused to repair unsafe conditions that caused the ceilings at the property to collapse in several places, including at least one collapse that caused significant injuries.  (Comp., ¶¶ 3-6.)  Plaintiffs allege defendants knew of and failed to repair numerous other potentially dangerous conditions, like “infestations” of bed bugs, cockroaches, and rodents, “broken windows,” and “malfunctioning smoke detectors.”  (¶ 7.)  Plaintiffs allege all “Defendants … were aware of the deplorable conditions” at the property but “intentionally refused to repair the conditions while also ratifying their employees’ and agents’ failure to take corrective action to remediate them.”  (¶ 58.)  

Plaintiffs also allege defendants committed intentional torts including “willfully caus[ing] the interruption of utility services furnished to Plaintiffs” (Comp., ¶ 164) and “retaliat[ing] against Plaintiffs by eliminating or reducing services at the Property” and attempting to evict them (¶ 173).  The Court of Appeal has held allegations of retaliation can establish malice.  (Colucci v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 442, 455; Perkins v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 1, 6.)   

A reasonable trier of fact could conclude that these allegations constitute despicable conduct carried on with a willful and conscious disregard of plaintiffs’ rights or safety or despicable conduct that subjected plaintiffs to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of their rights.

B. Corporate Defendants

Plaintiffs allege sufficient facts to recover punitive damages from defendants A/P Prop., LTD. and Landmark Realty Services, LLC.  For an entity to be liable for punitive damages, “the advance knowledge and conscious disregard [of an employee’s unfitness], 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).)  The complaint alleges, “Defendants, their officers, directors, employees, agents, and/or representatives observed and/or were aware of the deplorable conditions.  Nonetheless, Defendants intentionally refused to repair the conditions while also ratifying their employees’ and agents’ failure to take corrective action to remediate them.”  (¶ 58.)  A plaintiff “must allege [the] ultimate facts” required for punitive damages.  (Cyrus v. Haveson (1976) 65 Cal.App.3d 306, 316.)  A plaintiff is not required to specifically allege the identity of a corporation’s officers or directors who committed, ratified, or authorized the oppression, fraud, or malice.  Plaintiffs’ allegations suffice at the pleading stage. 

Disposition

Defendants A/P Prop., LTD., Lawrence John Deovlet, Phylis Deovlet, Landmark Realty Services, LLC, Garry A. Hartunian, and Francisca Capila’s motion to strike portions of plaintiffs’ complaint is denied.  Defendants shall answer the complaint within 20 days.