Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 23PSCV03819, Date: 2024-03-21 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.

Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.

The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.

Case Number: 23PSCV03819    Hearing Date: March 21, 2024    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

DEFENDANTS, MICHELLE PERRAULT’S and MICHELLE PERRAULT LIVING TRUST’s AND HMR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S (collectively, “Defendants”) MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT is GRANTED with leave to amend.

Background

This is a habitability case. Plaintiffs GERMAN CENTENO; DANIELLE CENTENO (“Danielle”); SOFIA CENTENO; PRISCILLA CENTENO, a minor by and through her Guardian ad Litem, DANIELLE CENTENO; AMELIA CENTENO, a minor by and through her Guardian ad Litem, and ANNALISE CENTENO, a minor by and through her Guardian ad Litem allege the following against Defendants MICHELE PERRAULT (“Michelle”); MICHELE PERRAULT, TRUSTEE OF THE MICHELE PERRAULT LIVING TRUST (“Trust”); HMR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC. (“Management Company”)[1]: Plaintiffs have been tenants at Michelle’s property July 1, 2013.  Plaintiffs faced two issues at the property: (1) mold and (2) defective plumbing. The mold problem started on August 30, 2021 and though Michelle sent someone to address the issue, no remediation was performed such that Plaintiffs’ recent bloodwork results indicated a positive presence of mold in their system. As to the latter, Plaintiffs experienced recurrent issues with the upstairs toilet overflowing over the years, causing leakage through the kitchen ceiling.[2] On October 13, 2022, Plaintiff Danielle filed a complaint with the Los Angeles County Health Department; on April 27, 2023, in retaliation, Plaintiffs received a 60-day Notice of Termination from the Management Company. (See generally Complaint pp. 1-4.)

On December 8, 2023, Plaintiffs filed suit asserting the following five causes of action (COAs) against Defendants:

On January 16, 2024, Defendants filed the instant motion to strike (MTS) without a demurrer.

On March 4, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their opposition.

On March 7, 2024, Defendants filed their reply.

Legal Standard

Defendants bring forth the motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 436. In turn, the statute provides that “The Court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (1) Strike out any irrelevant, false or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (b) Strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.”

As for punitive damages, the defendant must be guilty of oppression, fraud or malice. (Civ.Code, § 3294.) “He must act with the intent to vex, injure or annoy, or with a conscious disregard of the plaintiff's rights.” (Silberg v. California Life Insurance Company (1974) 11Cal.3d 452, 462.) “To support an award of punitive damages on the basis of conscious disregard of the safety of others, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant was aware of the probable dangerous consequences of his conduct, and that he willfully and deliberately failed to avoid those consequences.’” (Penner v. Falk (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 858, 867, quoting Taylor v. Superior Cout (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 895-896.)

Discussion

Defendants seek to strike ¶54:10-18 and the prayer for relief seeking punitive damages on the grounds “the allegations that defendants acted maliciously, intentionally, or with conscious disregard for the health and safety of plaintiffs’ rests squarely on bald legal conclusion, without any of necessary factual substantiation necessary to support claims for punitive damages.” (Motion p. 3:22-25.)[3]

Here, the pleadings allege long existing problems with mold which portend harm for the tenants. By illustration, the problems with mold started on 8/30/2021 and continued for nearly one year as evidenced by the fact that on 10/19/22, inspection results showed that mold was found in the subfloor of the hall bathroom. (Complaint ¶26.) The pleadings also allege that Michelle knew of the problems as she was the one who was notified on or about 8/30/2021 (¶14); 5/17/22 (¶17); 10/19/22 (¶23); 3/20/23 (¶24).[4]

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the pleadings do not set out that Michelle knew of those conditions for years, had power to make changes, but failed to take any corrective and curative measures. (C.f., Penner, supra, 153 Cal.App.3d at pp. 866-867 [punitive damages warranted when within two years before the plaintiff was assaulted, defendants “were aware that acts of trespass, robbery, burglary, physical assault, battery and rape had been committed on the premises and in the apartments. In this same time frame, respondents knew of tenant complaints that unauthorized persons were often in the building, but respondent refused to exclude them or prevent their access.”], emphasis added.)

In fact, the very same complaint provides that is Michelle who took certain measures. For example, she sent a handyman to address the issue (¶14) and the work remove the mold in the master bathroom was completed by the time mandated by the county-mandated inspection (¶15, 18). While the problem(s) were not completely repaired, it cannot be said that Michelle did nothing.

Additionally, the complaint fails to adhere to CCP section 3294’s requirement that each defendant be liable because here, Plaintiffs improperly lump allegations against all Defendants. (See e.g., Motion p. 6:9-11 [“There is not a single paragraph in the Complaint which separates the conduct of one defendant from any other defendant. There is no specific pleading as to any actions directly taken by either defendant against the plaintiffs.”].) The opposition does not address this point.

Therefore, the court GRANTS the MTS. As for leave to amend, as Plaintiffs have pled some facts and under California law, a landlord’s failure to repair can support a claim for punitive damages (Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 903, 920), the court grants leave to amend.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the motion to strike punitive damages is granted WITH leave to amend.