Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 23STCV00827, Date: 2023-09-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV00827    Hearing Date: January 18, 2024    Dept: 74

Danny Young v. Hyo Min Lee, et al.

Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

BACKGROUND 

            This action arises from a dispute at the Wilshire Fremont Condominium Homeowners Association, Inc. (Defendant).

            On January 17, 2023, Plaintiff Danny Young (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant and others. In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action against Defendant: “statutory violation,” and negligence.

            On October 4, 2023, Defendant filed this motion for judgment on the pleadings.

LEGAL STANDARD

            A motion for judgment on the pleadings has the same function as a general demurrer but is made after the time for demurrer has expired. Except as provided by Code of Civil Procedure section 438, the rules governing demurrers apply. (Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999.) 

DISCUSSION 

Third Cause of Action – Statutory Violation of Civil Code section 4177[1]

            Defendant first argues this cause of action fails because Plaintiff was not an owner of a unit in the condominium complex when he filed his complaint. (Complaint, ¶ 1; Martin v. Bridgeport Community Assn., Inc. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1024, 1032; Farber v. Bay View Terrace Homeowners Assn. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1007, 1011.) But Plaintiff does not claim he seeks to enforce the CC & R’s or the Davis-Stirling Act, nor does he claim any damages to his former condominium unit. (Opposition, p. 5-6.) Instead, Plaintiff seeks damages personal to himself. (Complaint, ¶¶ 28, 31, 32, 39, 40, 84, 85.) Plaintiff has not, however, alleged how Civil Code section 4177 provides for such damages. Thus, the court grants Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings with leave to amend.

Fourth Cause of Action – Negligence

            Defendant contends this cause of action fails because Plaintiff was not an owner of a unit in the condominium complex when he filed his complaint. (Complaint, ¶ 1; Martin v. Bridgeport Community Assn., Inc., supra, 173 Cal.App.4th at p, 1032; Farber v. Bay View Terrace Homeowners Assn., supra, 141 Cal.App.4th at p. 1011.) Plaintiff alleges Defendant caused him severe emotional distress by accusing him of financial mismanagement when he served on the board. (Complaint, ¶¶ 39, 40.) This misrepresentation (whether stated negligently, as implied by the cause of action’s title, or intentionally as alleged in paragraph 87) allegedly caused Plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress. (Complaint, ¶¶ 40, 89.) Thus, Plaintiff alleges facts sufficient to support a cause of action that does not rest on his owning a condominium when he filed his complaint. The court denies Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings for this cause of action.

CONCLUSION 

The court grants Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings for the third cause of action with leave to amend. The court denies Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings for the fourth cause of action.

Defendant shall give notice.