Judge Barbara M. Scheper, Case 22STCV16570 2023-02-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 22STCV16570, Date: 2023-02-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV16570 Hearing Date: February 24, 2023 Dept: 30

Dept. 30

Calendar No.

Linares, et. al. vs. Chan, et. al., Case No. 22STCV16570

Tentative Ruling re: Defendant’s Motion to Strike

Defendant Raymond Chan moves to strike the portions of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (FAC) relating to punitive damages. The motion is denied.

Any party may file a timely notice of a motion to strike the whole or any part of a pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b).) The motion may seek to strike any “irrelevant, false or improper matter inserted in any pleading” or any part of the pleading “not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.) Irrelevant allegations include allegations that are not essential to the statement of a claim, allegations that are not pertinent to or supported by the claim and demands for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations. (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.10, subds. (b), (c).)

Defendant is the manager and owner of a residential rental property located at 3645 South Durfee Ave., El Monte, California (the Property). (FAC ¶ 1.) Plaintiffs moved into the Property on June 13, 2020, and were constructively evicted in June 2021. (FAC ¶ 15.) Plaintiffs allege that a number of defective and dangerous living conditions existed on the Property, including unsafe doors and locks, unsafe electrical outlets, water leaking, poor plumbing, and inadequate heating. (FAC ¶ 18.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendant and his agents concealed the habitability problems from Plaintiffs inducing Plaintiff to enter into the lease, and that Defendant took no effective remedial action to correct the issues in conscious regard for Plaintiffs’ health and safety. (FAC ¶¶ 25-26.)

Defendant moves to strike Plaintiffs’ prayer for punitive damages and related allegations. (FAC ¶¶ 24-26, 30, 36-37, 43, 51, Prayer 2.)

Civil Code § 3294, subd. (a) authorizes the recovery of punitive damages where the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, express or implied. “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” is despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights. (Civ. Code § 3294(c)(2).) “Fraud” means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury. (Civ. Code § 3294(c)(3).)¿

To succeed on a motion to strike punitive damages, it must be said as a matter of law that the alleged behavior was not so vile, base, or contemptible that it would not be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people. (Angie M. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1228-29.) “In order to survive a motion to strike an allegation of punitive damages, the ultimate facts showing an entitlement to such relief must be pled by a plaintiff.” (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal. App. 4th 1253, 1255.) Conclusory allegations, devoid of any factual assertions, are insufficient to support a conclusion that parties acted with oppression, fraud, or malice. (Smith v. Sup. Ct. (1992) 10 Cal. App. 4th 1033, 1042.)

The alleged habitability violations on the Property, along with Defendant’s failure to correct those violations despite actual knowledge, are sufficient to support recovery of punitive damages. For comparison, in Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 903, the Court of Appeal found that the plaintiff pled sufficient facts to support punitive damages, where “[s]he alleged that defendant had actual knowledge of defective conditions in the premises including leaking sewage, deteriorated flooring, falling ceiling, leaking roof, broken windows, and other unsafe and dangerous conditions. She also alleged that defendants ‘In maintaining said nuisance, ... acted with full knowledge of the consequences thereof and the damage being caused to plaintiff, and their conduct was willful, oppressive and malicious.’ ” (Id. at 920.) The allegations in Plaintiffs’ FAC, while somewhat conclusory, are at a similar level of detail.