Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki

Department 58

Hearing Date: October 13, 2023

Case Name: Correa, et al v. Wan, et al.

Case No.: 23STCV01719

Matter: (1.) Demurrer

(2.) Motion to Strike

Moving Party: (1.) Defendant Leafy Properties, LLC (As Doe 1)

(2.) Defendants Craig Hsu and Karen Lee Hsu

Responding Party: (1.) Plaintiffs

(2.) Plaintiffs

Tentative Ruling: The Demurrer is sustained in its entirety with leave to amend. The Motion to Strike is denied.

This is a landlord-tenant dispute over habitability. Plaintiffs are tenants who reside in an apartment complex located at 544 E. 15th St., Long Beach, CA 90813 (Property). Plaintiffs allege that their respective units contained – among other conditions – inadequate plumbing, improper electrical wiring, a vermin infestation, and other unsafe and unsanitary premises, all in violation of Civil Code section 1941.1 and Health and Safety Code section 17920.10. The City of Long Beach Department of Development Services Code Enforcement Bureau inspected the Property and gave written notice of the housing and health code violations to Defendants, and the violations contained in those notices remained unabated for more than 35 days after the inspection. Throughout the entirety of this time, Plaintiffs aver, Defendants demanded and collected rent from Plaintiffs.

The Complaint contains causes of action for (1.) violation of Civil Code section 1942.2, (2.) breach of warranty of habitability, (3.) private nuisance, (4.) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, and (5.) negligence.

Defendant Leafy Properties, LLC (Leafy Properties) demurred to the first through fifth causes of action in the Complaint. Plaintiffs filed an opposition.

Additionally, Defendants Craig Hsu and Karen Lee Hsu (Hsu Defendants) filed a motion to strike the request for punitive damages in the Complaint. Plaintiffs filed an opposition.

The Court sustains the demurrer as to the first through fifth causes of action with leave to amend. The motion to strike is denied.

Legal Standard for Demurrers

A demurrer is an objection to a pleading, the grounds for which are apparent from either the face of the complaint or a matter of which the court may take judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.30, subd. (a); see also Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The purpose of a demurrer is to challenge the sufficiency of a pleading “by raising questions of law.” (Postley v. Harvey (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 280, 286.) “In the construction of a pleading, for the purpose of determining its effect, its allegations must be liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice between the parties.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 452.) The court “ ‘ “treat[s] the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law . . . .” ’ ” (Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 525.) In applying these standards, the court liberally construes the complaint to determine whether a cause of action has been stated. (Picton v. Anderson Union High School Dist. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 726, 733.)

Analysis

Defendant Leafy Properties argues the Complaint fails to state a claim against it.

On January 26, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint against Defendants Craig Hsu and Karen Lee Hsu (Hsu Defendants), as well as Defendants Lawrence C. Wan and Lourdes Cordero Wan (Wan Defendants) and Does 1-100. On July 18, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a DOE Amendment, naming Defendant Leafy Properties, LLC as Doe 1.

While the Complaint identifies and alleges facts against the Hsu Defendants and Wan Defendants by grouping them together in the term “Defendants,” the Complaint fails to incorporate the Doe Defendants into that term at any point. Instead, the Complaint merely alleges “each of the Defendants and DOES was the agent, employee and representative of every other Defendant and DOE, and in doing the things hereinafter alleged, was acting within the course and scope of such agency, service and representation, and directed, aided and abetted, authorized or ratified each and every act and conduct hereinafter alleged.” (Compl., ¶ 14.)

In opposition, Plaintiffs argue in their papers that Defendant Leafy Properties has been the owner of the Property since approximately April 2023. Plaintiffs further note that the government agency reports citing the code violations were sent directly to the owner of the property, in this case Defendant Leafy Properties. Thus, according to Plaintiffs, Defendant Leafy Properties may be assumed to have knowledge of the facts equal, if not more, possessed by the Plaintiffs and further note that the conditions and conduct at issue in the Complaint continue to exist to this day.

None of these alleged facts, however, are pleaded in the Complaint. The Complaint fails to even identify Defendant Leafy Properties as the property owner.

Plaintiff has failed to state any claim as to Defendant Leafy Properties. The demurrer by Leafy Properties is sustained as to the first through fifth causes of action with leave to amend.

Legal Standard for Motions to Strike

Hsu Defendants move to strike the request for punitive damages. Specifically, Hsu Defendants move to strike the punitive damages request on the grounds that Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts supporting malice, fraud, or oppression.

“The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (b) Strike out 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.”¿(Code Civ. Proc. § 436.) “Immaterial” or “irrelevant” matters include allegations not essential to the claim, allegations neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or a demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc. § 431.10, subds. (b)(1)-(3).)

Punitive damages are recoverable where the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, express or implied. (Civ. Code § 3294.) “Something more than the mere commission of a tort is always required for punitive damages. There must be circumstances of aggravation our outrage, such as spite or malice, or a fraudulent or evil motive on the part of the defendant, or such a conscious and deliberate disregard of the interests of others that his conduct may be called willful or wanton.” (Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 894.) Specific intent to injure is not necessary for a showing of malice—it is sufficient that the defendant’s conduct was so “wanton or so reckless as to evince malice or conscious disregard of others’ rights.” (McConnell v. Quinn (1925) 71 Cal. App. 671, 682.)

A request for punitive damages that is not supported with specific allegations of oppression, fraud, or malice is subject to a motion to strike. Conclusory allegations that defendants acted “willfully,” “maliciously,” or with “oppression, fraud, or malice” are not, without more, sufficient to give rise to a claim for punitive damages, but such language is permissible where the complaint contains sufficient factual support for the conclusions. (Perkins v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 1, 6-7.)

Here, the Complaint alleges that Hsu Defendants were landlords and owners of the Property, and knowingly maintained the Property in unhabitable, dangerous condition. (Compl., ¶¶ 8-9.) Specifically, they engaged in illegal, non-professional repairs which have disturbed the lead paint. (Comp., ¶ 33.) There was substandard plumbing and electrical work performed on the Property; the Property was also infested with bedbugs and cockroaches. (Compl., ¶¶ 23-28.) The Complaint further alleges Defendants refused to take corrective and/or curative measures in spite of actual knowledge of the substandard conditions with a conscious disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights, health and/or safety. (Compl., ¶ 34.)

These allegations are sufficient to support malicious conduct. The motion to strike is denied.

Conclusion

The demurrer is sustained in its entirety. The motion to strike is denied. Plaintiff shall have leave to amend. The amended complaint shall be served and filed on or before November 13, 2023.