Judge Barbara M. Scheper, Case Number: 24STCV08675, Date: 2024-08-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 24STCV08675, Date: 2024-08-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV08675 Hearing Date: August 2, 2024 Dept: 30

Dept. 30

Calendar No.

Buchanan, et. al. v. SRO Combo Apartments, LLC, et. al., Case No. 24STCV08675

Tentative Ruling re: Defendant’s Motion to Strike

Defendant Single Room Occupancy Housing Corporation moves to strike irrelevant and inflammatory language and Plaintiffs’ request for 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).)

Plaintiffs allege that Defendant failed to properly maintain the property. (Complaint ¶¶ 34-43.) Accordingly, any allegation that tends to prove that the Defendants did in fact fail to properly maintain the property is relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims.

Defendant lists excerpts from the Complaint that they deem to be irrelevant and numbers these excerpts one through eighteen. (Defendant’s motion to strike, p.7-10.) These excepts contain the following allegations regarding the operation and management of the property: SRO had a pattern of taking advantage of low income tenants, SRO intentionally failed to repair the property, SRO failed to inspect the property, SRO was notified by the Los Angeles Housing Department (LAHD) and that Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (LAPH) that the premises were in violation of building codes and health and safety codes, the Defendant allegedly willfully and negligently failed to remediate leaks and mold, SRO was aware that tenants lacked awareness of the law, the SRO acted intentionally and illegally with the intention to collect as much money from the tenants as possible, and SRO acted as slum lords to maximize profit from low income people. (Id.)

Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs’ reply did not address the relevancy of the above excepts. (Defendant’s reply to Plaintiffs’ opposition, Lines 1-4, p. 2.) Therefore, Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs have conceded that these allegations are irrelevant. (Id.) The Court is not persuaded because the moving party must sufficiently argue their position that the excerpts are irrelevant. Here, Plaintiffs’ allegations do tend to show that Defendant failed to properly maintain the property in violation of California law and thus the allegations are relevant.

Defendant contends that Plaintiffs did not properly plead a cause of action that supports a claim for punitive damages because Plaintiffs use conclusory statements and have not attached copies of the alleged LAHD and LAPH violations mentioned in the Complaint. (Defendant’s motion to strike, Lines 20-28, p. 13.) Furthermore, punitive damages are judicially disfavored. (Id., Line 6, p. 14.)

Punitive damages may be imposed where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).) “(1) Malice” is conduct intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others. (2) “Oppression” means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(1-2).) “‘Punitive damages are proper only when the tortious conduct rises to levels of extreme indifference to the plaintiff’s rights, a level which decent citizens should not have to tolerate.’ [Citation.]” (Lackner v. North (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1188, 1210.)

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.)

Here, Plaintiffs allege that “Defendants' conduct described above was willful, wanton, intentional, despicable, malicious, and initiated with malice and with the intent to knowingly take advantage of, oppress, and injure Plaintiffs.” (Complaint ¶ 52.) Plaintiffs also allege that “Defendant and their agents, directors, and/or officers, who knowingly permitted the above-mentioned habitability defects and untenable conditions to continue existing, was willful and intentional as well as undertaken with malice against Plaintiffs and with a conscious disregard of Plaintiffs' rights.” (Complaint ¶ 67.) These allegations are sufficient to support the showing that Defendant acted with malice.