Judge Barbara M. Scheper, Case Number: 23STCV20522, Date: 2024-01-05 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 23STCV20522, Date: 2024-01-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV20522 Hearing Date: January 5, 2024 Dept: 30

Dept. 30

Calendar No.

Vasquez, et. al. vs. Carnessale, et. al., Case No. 23STCV20522

Tentative Ruling re: Defendants’ Motion to Strike

Defendants Timothy W. Carnessale, Yeimi Estrada (collectively, Defendants) move to strike the allegations of punitive damages set forth in the First Amended Complaint (FAC) of Plaintiffs Raul Vasquez, Melinda Rodriguez, and Jazmine Vasquez (collectively, Plaintiffs). 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).)

Plaintiffs are tenants at the real property located at 620 W. 48th St., Apt. 1, Los Angeles, California (the Property). (FAC ¶ 11.) The Property is owned by Defendant Timothy W. Carnessale and managed by Defendant Yeimi Estrada. (FAC ¶ 13.) During their tenancy, Plaintiffs have allegedly been exposed to a number of substandard conditions at the Property, including toxic mold, inoperable windows and doors, cockroach and rodent infestations, an inoperable heater, and deteriorated walls and ceilings. (FAC ¶ 13.) Although Plaintiffs have notified Defendants of the conditions since 2016 and as recently as 2022, Defendants have failed to abate them. (FAC ¶¶ 14-15.) As a result of the toxic mold, Plaintiff Melinda Rodriguez was diagnosed with Bronchitis in 2017, and Plaintiff Jazmine Vasquez has developed an ongoing cough. (FAC ¶ 17.) Plaintiffs also assert claims against Defendants for disability discrimination under FEHA, based on Defendants’ alleged refusal to allow Plaintiffs to use a removable wheelchair ramp for Plaintiff Raul Vasquez, who is physically disabled. (FAC ¶¶ 24-27.)

Defendants move to strike Plaintiffs’ prayers for punitive damages and related allegations under their claims for Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability, Breach of Implied Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment, IIED, and Violation of Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance (Los Angeles Municipal Code §45.33) (FAC ¶¶ 22, 46, 63, 96, 103, Prayer 4), arguing that Plaintiffs have failed to plead malice, oppression, or fraud.

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.)

Defendants’ alleged failures to correct the toxic mold , and other habitability violations on the Property despite actual knowledge are sufficient to plead malice or oppression supporting recovery of punitive damages. 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’ First Amended Complaint are at a greater level of detail than those in Stoiber and so likewise plead oppression or malice by Defendants. (FAC ¶ 13.)