Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 22STCV17930, Date: 2022-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV17930    Hearing Date: December 13, 2022    Dept: 76

Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1), the Court does not desire oral argument on the demurrer addressed herein.  As required by Rule 3.1308(a)(2), any party seeking oral argument must notify ALL OTHER PARTIES and the staff of Department 76 of their intent to appear and argue.  Notice to Department 76 may be sent by email to smcdept76@lacourt.org or telephonically at 213-830-0776.  If notice of intention to appear is not given and the parties do not appear, the Court will adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling.

            Plaintiff tenant alleges that he was wrongfully locked out of his apartment unit by Defendants without a court judgment.

Defendant Scott Properties Group Inc. demurs to the First Amended Complaint and move to strike portions thereof. 

TENTATIVE RULING

            Defendant Scott Properties Group Inc.’s demurer to the first through fifth causes of action is OVERRULED. 

            Defendant’s motion to strike is GRANTED without leave to amend as to Page 9, Prayer, ¶ 8, line 15:”For attorney’s fees” and DENIED as to Page 9, Prayer, ¶ 5, lines 13-14: “For punitive damages in the amount accord to proof.” 

            Defendant is ordered to answer the First Amended Complaint within 10 days. 

ANALYSIS 

Demurrer

Meet and Confer

            The Declaration of Victoria T. Kajo reflects that Defendant’s counsel satisfied the meet and confer requirement set forth in CCP § 430.41.

Discussion

Defendant Scott Properties Group Inc. demurs to the Complaint as follows:

1.         First Cause of Action (Illegal Lockout of Tenant); Second Cause of Action (Conversion); Third Cause of Action (Negligence); Fourth Cause of Action (Unfair Business Practice—B & P Code § 17200); Fifth Cause of Action (Violation of Unfair Competition Law).

            Defendant demurs to these causes of action on the ground of uncertainty.

            A demurrer for uncertainty is properly sustained where the complaint is so vague or uncertain that the defendant cannot reasonably respond, i.e., when the defendant cannot determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what counts are directed against the defendant. (Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616; Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial, supra, ¶ 7:85.)  Demurrers for uncertainty are disfavored and strictly construed “because ambiguities can reasonably be clarified under modern rules of discovery.” (Lickiss v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135.)

            The 1AC sufficiently identifies what demurring Defendant Scott Properties Group, Inc. is alleged to have done. Defendant Scott Properties is alleged to have been the property manager, which filed an eviction action against Plaintiff, then illegally locked Plaintiff out of the premises by alleging abandonment. (1AC, ¶¶ 9, 10.) Defendant filed an unlawful detainer complaint on May 21, 2020, then voluntarily dismissed it on April 30, 2021. (1AC, ¶ 10.) On June 29, 2020, Plaintiff returned to his unit to changed locks, and he no longer had access to his unit, and his personal property was discarded. (1AC, ¶ 11.) Plaintiff communicated with Defendants numerous times to retrieve his property and to be allowed access to his unit. (1AC, ¶ 12.) Plaintiff alleges that it was illegal to lock Plaintiff out of his unit and to discard his property without first obtaining a court judgment. (1AC, ¶ 13.) See also allegations at ¶¶ 18, 22, 26.

            The 1AC does not fail for uncertainty, which is the only ground asserted in the demurrer. The demurrer was not based on whether or not the facts pled are sufficient to state a cause of action.

            As such, the demurrer to the first through fifth causes of action is OVERRULED.

Motion To Strike

Meet and Confer

            The Declaration of Victoria T. Kajo reflects that Defendant’s counsel satisfied the meet and confer requirement set forth in CCP § 435.5.

Discussion

            Defendant Scott Properties Group Inc. moves to strike the following portions of the 1AC:

¿         Page 9, Prayer, ¶ 8, line 15:”For attorney’s fees”:

            GRANTED without leave to amend.

“[A]s a general rule, attorney fees are not recoverable as costs unless they are authorized by statute or agreement.” (People ex rel. Dept. of Corporations v. Speedee Oil Change Systems, Inc. (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 424, 429.) Here, the 1AC does not allege a contractual or statutory basis for recover of attorney’s fees. Of note, attorney’s fees may not be recovered pursuant to Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. “The UCL does not authorize an award of attorney fees. No exception exists for UCL actions predicated on a statute that authorizes such an award.” (People ex rel. City of Santa Monica v. Gabriel (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 882, 891.)

¿         Page 9, Prayer, ¶ 5, lines 13-14: “For punitive damages in the amount accord to proof.”

            DENIED.

            As discussed above re: the demurrer, the 1AC sufficiently alleges that Defendant Scott Properties acted with “malice,” as that term is defined in Civil Code § 3294(c)(1) to include “conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff.” Such intentional conduct need not be despicable under the current version of § 3294.

           Defendant is ordered to answer the First Amended Complaint within 10 days.