Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 23STCV13013, Date: 2024-03-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV13013    Hearing Date: March 8, 2024    Dept: 30

Dept. 30

Calendar No.

Jackson et. al. v. Equity Residential Management, LLC, et. al., Case No. 23STCV13013

Tentative Ruling re:  Defendant’s Motion to Strike

Defendant Equity Residential Management LLC moves to strike paragraphs, 4, 48, 65, and 67 in the First Amended Complaint.  The motion is granted with ten (10) days leave to amend.

            The court may, upon 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. (CCP § 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. (CCP § 436, subd. (b).) The grounds for a motion to strike are that the pleading has irrelevant, false, or improper matter, or has not been drawn or filed in conformity with laws. (CCP § 436.) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (CCP § 437.)

            CCP § 1786.50(b) provides: “If the court determines that the violation was grossly negligent or willful, the court may, in addition, assess, and the consumer may recover, punitive damages.” (emphasis added.) Gross negligence is a want of even scant care or an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct. (City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court (2007) 41.Cal.4^th 747, 754.) Black’s Law Dictionary states that a voluntary act becomes willful, in law, only when it involves conscious wrong or evil purpose on the part of the actor, or at least inexcusable carelessness, whether the act is right or wrong. (Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019), willful.) Therefore, the inquiry before the Court is whether the FAC provides facts that fall within these definitions. As explained below, the FAC does not.    

            Defendant’s alleged violations include the fact that Defendant did not provide means by which a consumer could indicate they wish to receive a copy of any report prepared (FAC, ¶41), Defendant failed to notify the consumer in writing that an investigative consumer report would be made within three days after the report was requested (FAC, ¶ 43), and Defendant did not notify Plaintiffs of the identity of the consumer reporting agency that would prepare the report. (FAC, ¶ 44.) Additionally, the FAC alleges numerous times that Defendant is a large corporation that had access to legal advice and could have retained counsel to advise that they must comply with the ICRAA.

            None of these allegations demonstrate an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct nor an act with evil purpose. Defendant points to Anderson v. Fitness Internat., LLC (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 867, 881 and argues that “[M]ere nonfeasance such as the failure to discover a dangerous condition or to perform a duty amounts to ordinary negligence” but not gross negligence. The Court agrees, and Plaintiffs fail to provide caselaw in their opposition papers demonstrating otherwise.