Judge Christian R. Gullon, Case Number: 23PSCV03998, Date: 2024-03-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 23PSCV03998, Date: 2024-03-11 Tentative Ruling

(1) Defendants AANENSON PROPERTIES dba WALNUT PARK APARTMENTS’s and P.F.C. ENTERPRISES, INC. dba ALLEN PROPERTIES LLC’s (“Defendants”) DEMURRER to Plaintiff’s Complaint is SUSTAINED without leave to amend because the claims are barred by the statute of limitations (SOL).

(2) Defendants’ MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT is GRANTED WITHOUT leave to amend (as to the 1/3/20 injury and punitive damages).

On December 28, 2023, Plaintiff Aurora Mora filed suit against Defendants AAENESON PROPERTIES dba WALNUT PARK APARTMENTS, P.F.C. ENTERPRISES, INC. dba ALLEN PROPERTIES asserting the following causes of action (COAs):

Defendants demur to the first three causes of action on the grounds that they are uncertain, fail to state sufficient facts, and are barred by the SOL.

Plaintiff has been a tenant of unit 4D since 2015 (¶7); “For at least 10 years, Defendants, while under their control, failed to provide a habitable residence for Plaintiff and other tenants;” (¶11, emphasis added); “On January 3, 2020, the unsafe condition of unit 4D’s exterior floors, stairways, and railing caused Plaintiff to fall down such stairs and suffer severe spinal injuries and a head injury;” (¶13, emphasis added). In sum, since 2015 (for nearly 10 years), the property has been inhabitable. With problems existing since 2015, the first three COAs are barred by the SOL.

Here, though there is a written contract (Complaint, Ex. A), Plaintiff is not a signatory. (Demurrer p. 5.) Instead, the contract/lease is signed between Pedro Hernandez and Allen Properties. (See Complaint p. 10 of 37 of PDF.)[1] Consequently, at best, Plaintiff can only allege breach of an oral contract, if any, which carries a two-year SOL period. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 339, 337, 337.2 [The statute of limitations for breach of contract is two years for an oral contract and four years for a written contract or written lease.].) With a 2-year SOL, Plaintiff can only complain of any breach dating back to two years before her Complaint was filed, or as far back as December 23, 2021. (Demurrer p. 6.) Here, however, Plaintiff claiming damages from injuries dating well beyond December 23, 2021 (head injury dated 01/03/2020 and general lack of habitable conditions dated to 2015).[2]

For these reasons, as the claims are barred by the SOL, Defendants’ Demurrer to Plaintiff’s first and third COAs are SUSTAINED WITHOUT leave to amend.[3]

A claim for breach of implied warranty of habitability under Civil Code section 1941 is subject to the one-year limitation period prescribed by Code of Civil Procedure section 340. (Demurrer p. 6.)

Here, Plaintiff’s second cause of action is “[a]n action upon a statute for a penalty or forfeiture” and subject to the one-year limitations period set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 340, subdivision (a). For reasons discussed above, the claim is time-barred.

Therefore, the court SUSTAINS the demurrer as to the 2^nd COA WITHOUT leave to amend.

Based on the foregoing, the demurrer is sustained in its entirety without leave to amend.

Defendants move to strike portions of the complaint that relate to the 1/3/2020 injury. Plaintiff alleges that Plaintiff “suffered … severe spinal injuries and a head injury as a result of Defendants failing to ensure the Property’s floors, stairways, and railings were maintained in good condition and repair at all times while she resided at the Property.” (Complaint p. 2.) Based on said damages, Plaintiff seeks punitive damages.

However, Plaintiff’s January 3, 2020, personal injury claim is barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel. (MTS p. 2.)

In Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22STCV21615, Plaintiff filed suit against the same Defendants (identical parties) for property damage and personal injury in connection with her trip and fall on January 3, 2020 at the premises located at 2817 Valley Blvd., West Covina, CA 91792 (the same property). The problem: on 12/18/23, the court entered judgment for Defendants after finding that the claim was claim was time-barred by the two-year statute of limitations pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1.

Now, in this action, Plaintiff seeks to re-litigate her time-barred trip and fall personal injury of January 3, 2020, under the guise of breach of warranty of habitability/breach of contract. This is very purpose res judicata: to “prevent[] relitigation of the same cause of action in a second suit between the same parties or parties in privity with them.” (MTS p. 5, quoting Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 888, 896.)

Under CCP section 436, the court has discretion to 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.)

Here, Plaintiff seeks to circumvent the prior court’s ruling by re-litigating a claim and issue that has already been adjudicated to judgment.[4]

Therefore, the court STRIKES the allegations regarding Plaintiff’s January 3, 2020 personal injury claim WITHOUT leave to amend.

As for punitive damages, Plaintiff does not allege that Defendants intended to injure her. (See MTS p. 7, quoting Ebaugh v. Rabkin (1972) 22 Cal.App.3d 891, 894 [“There must be an intent to vex, annoy or injure. Mere spite or ill will is not sufficient; and mere negligence, even gross negligence is not sufficient to justify an award of punitive damages.”].) At most, what is alleged is negligence, but that is an insufficient basis to justify an award of punitive damages under. (Id. at p. 894.) Moreover, any allegations of malice are pled in a conclusory manner, which is insufficient for punitive damages. (MTS p. 7, quoting Brousseau v. Jarrett (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 864, 872 [“[C]onclusory characterization of defendant’s conduct as intentional, willful and fraudulent is a patently insufficient statement of ‘oppression, fraud, or malice.’”].)

Therefore, as Plaintiff has set forth blanket conclusions of malice, oppression or fraud, Plaintiff’s claim and prayer for punitive damages are STRICKEN without leave to amend.

Based on the foregoing, demurrer is sustained without leave to amend and the MTS is granted without leave to amend.

[1] Plaintiff is named as an “occupant” of the unit.

[2] Demurrer notes damages date back to 2013 (Demurrer p. 6:6-7 [“What this means is Plaintiff’s purported injuries dating back 3 years (01/03/20), 8 years (2015), and 10 years (2013) are time-barred. (Complaint, ¶¶ 11-16)”], emphasis added), but the court sees no reference 2013 in the complaint.

[3] “If a demurrer demonstrates that a pleading is untimely on its face, it becomes the plaintiff's burden “even at the pleading stage” to establish an exception to the limitations period.” (Fuller v. First Franklin Financial Corp. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 955, 962.) Here, despite the pleading on its face indicating that the claims are time-barred, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to meet her burden. Additionally, as a fundamental change in the facts would save the pleading, there is no possibility of curing the defect by amendment, meaning leave to amend would be futile. Furthermore, as leave to amend is within the discretion of the court, the court would exercise its discretion to deny leave to amend due to Plaintiff’s, effectively, frivolous filing of this complaint.

[4] (See 11/16/23 Minute Order in Case 22STCV21615 [“To the extent Plaintiff seeks to amend the Complaint to allege a cause of action for breach of the implied warranty of habitability, Plaintiff has not explained why she has waited 16 months to raise this new cause of action. (See Le Mere v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 237, 245 [finding no abuse of discretion when the plaintiff failed to explain 14- month delay in raising a new cause of action in amended pleading].) Without any such explanation, the Court finds granting leave to amend to be unwarranted.”].)