Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 22AHCV00125, Date: 2022-07-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00125    Hearing Date: July 25, 2022    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT 3

MOVING PARTY:                Defendants Shirley Tzen, Michael Tzen, and Leo Wang

RESPONDING PARTY:       N/A

Defendants’ Demurrer to the Complaint and Motion to Strike Exemplary Damages from the Complaint

The court considered the moving papers. No opposition was filed.  

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiffs Changjiao Li, Xiangrui Zhou, and Haibo Zhou filed this action on March 8, 2022 against Defendants Shirley Tzen, Michael Tzen, and Leo Wang. The complaint asserts a cause of action for breach of contract and a cause of action for intentional tort arising from Plaintiffs’ tenancy at a residence owned by Defendants.  

Defendants now demur to both causes of action on the basis that both fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Defendants also move to strike the punitive damages allegations from the complaint.

///

LEGAL STANDARD

A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) “To survive a demurrer, the complaint need only allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action; each evidentiary fact that might eventually form part of the plaintiff’s proof need not be alleged.” (C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872.) For the purpose of testing the sufficiency of the cause of action, the demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pleaded. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 966-967.) A demurrer “does not admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.” (Daar v. Yellow Cab Co. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 695, 713.)

DISCUSSION

First, Defendants argue that both causes of action are barred by the applicable statute of limitations because Plaintiffs allege that wrongful conduct occurred from October 5, 2016 until October 22, 2021. But as long as Plaintiffs allege that some conduct occurred within the limitations period, the claims are not time-barred. (Pointe San Diego Residential Community, L.P. v. Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch, LLP (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 265, 274 [“[T]o prevail on a demurrer based on the statute of limitations, a defendant must establish the entire cause of action is untimely.”].) The court finds that Plaintiffs have done so. Not only is it sufficient to allege that the landlord breached the lease by undertaking conduct “until October 22, 2021,” the breach of contract claim also includes the allegation that the landlord breached the lease agreement by shutting off the power on April 1, 2021. (Compl., ¶ BC-2.) In support of the intentional tort cause of action, Plaintiffs allege that the landlord trespassed onto the property on October 22, 2021 and that the landlord verbally harassed Plaintiffs on March 22, 2021. (Compl., ¶ IT-1.)

Second, Defendants argue that no cause of action has been stated against Defendants Michael Tzen and Leo Wang because neither is a party to the lease agreement and because there are no facts as to either defendant to support the intentional tort claim. The court agrees that Plaintiffs fail to state a cause of action for breach of contract against Michael Tzen and Leo Wang. However, Plaintiffs allege that the three Defendants forged police reports and witness signatures in order to evict Plaintiffs. (Nativi v. Duetsche Bank National Trust Co. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4h 261, 293 [“California recognizes the tort of wrongful eviction.”].) Accordingly, the demurrer is sustained as to Michael Tzen and Leo Wang for breach of contract and overruled for intentional tort.

Third, Defendants argue that no cause of action for breach of contract has been stated as to Shirley Tzen because the allegations are irrelevant to the lease agreement. Plaintiffs allege that one of the terms of the lease was the exclusive use of the gate by the tenants, and that Shirley Tzen breached the lease by removing the gate. Plaintiffs also allege that Shirley Tzen converted the parking spaces that were assigned to Plaintiffs under the terms of the lease. (Compl., ¶ BC-2.) The court finds that these allegations are relevant to the cause of action. Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs have failed to plead facts showing that the breaches caused Plaintiffs’ damages, but Defendants fail to show that a breach of contract claim requires any more specificity than what is alleged in the complaint.

Fourth, Defendants contend that the intentional tort claim must fail because it is unclear which tort Plaintiffs are attempting to assert. But the court notes that Plaintiffs make reference in the complaint to trespassing, to harassment, and to infliction of emotional distress. If the facts alleged support at least one cause of action, it is sufficient to overcome demurrer. (Brousseau v. Jarrett (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 864, 870-871 [finding that a general demurrer should never be sustained if a pleading states a cause of action on any theory].) Defendants do not attempt to address any of these theories in their demurrer, and so the demurrer is overruled.

Finally, Defendants argue that the punitive damages allegations must be stricken from the complaint because Plaintiffs have not stated facts establishing malice, fraud, or oppression with the requisite specificity. But it is Defendants’ burden as the moving party to show that the allegations set forth in the exemplary damages attachment to the complaint do not show malice, fraud, or oppression. A conclusory assertion that the complaint is filled with “unintelligible and irrelevant allegations” does not meet that burden.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court sustains the demurrer to the cause of action for breach of contract as to Defendants Michael Tzen and Leo Wang, with leave to amend. The court otherwise overrules Defendants’ demurrer. The court denies Defendants’ motion to strike.

The court orders Plaintiffs to file and serve an amended complaint, if any, within 20 days of the date of this order. If no amended complaint is filed within 20 days, the court orders Defendants to file and serve an answer within 30 days of the date of this order.

Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  July 25, 2022

_____________________________

Colin Leis

Judge of the Superior Court