Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 23STCV08869, Date: 2024-02-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV08869 Hearing Date: February 14, 2024 Dept: 74
Rosa Marie
Rice, et al. v. Next Level Estates, et al.
Defendant Llama Guys, LLC’s Demurrer
The court considered the moving
papers and opposition.
BACKGROUND
This
action arises from a landlord-tenant dispute.
On
April 21, 2023, Plaintiffs Rosa Marie Rice (individually and as guardian ad
litem for Hydron Hykiem-Ulysis Roberson and Rosemarie Heavenly Roberson) and
Sirrichard Roberson (Plaintiffs) filed a complaint against Next Level Estates,
Reginald Keith McKizzie, Jewel Smith, and Llama Guys, LLC (Defendant).
The
complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) breach of implied
warranty of habitability, (2) tortious breach of implied warranty of
habitability, (3) negligence, (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress,
(5) private nuisance, (6) violation of Civil Code section 1942.4, (7) violation
of Business and Professions Code section 17200, and (8) violation of the Los
Angeles Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance.
On
August 29, 2023, Defendant filed this demurrer.
Defendant’s
demurrer targets the fourth cause of action for intentional infliction of
emotional distress and the fifth cause of action for private nuisance.
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
Fourth Cause of Action – Intentional
Infliction of Emotional Distress
The elements for this cause of
action are as follows: (1) outrageous conduct by the defendant, (2) intention
to cause or reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional
distress, (3) severe emotional suffering, and (4) actual and proximate
causation of the emotional distress. (Wong v. Jing (2010) 189
Cal.App.4th 1354, 1376.) Defendant argues Plaintiffs’ intentional infliction of
emotional distress claim fails for multiple reasons. First, Defendant contends
Plaintiffs’ allegations do not demonstrate extreme and outrageous behavior by
Defendant. As Plaintiffs note, though, allegations that a landlord failed to
correct defective conditions on property occupied by a tenant can support this
cause of action. (See Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 903,
921-922.) Moreover, Plaintiffs allege as much in their complaint. (Complaint,
¶¶ 11, 12, 16, 45.)
Second,
Defendant asserts Plaintiffs have not alleged sufficient facts to support their
supposed emotional distress. But Plaintiffs allege that, due to Defendant’s misconduct,
Plaintiffs continue to suffer anxiety, fright, insomnia, depression, nausea,
fatigue, bodily injury, and physical symptoms. (Complaint, ¶ 46.) This suffices
for pleading purposes. (¿¿C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist.,
supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 872¿¿ [“¿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.¿”].)
Third,
Defendant argues the complaint lacks facts showing Defendant intended to cause
Plaintiffs’ emotional distress. But this cause of action also applies to
defendants who exhibit reckless disregard of the probability that their conduct
will cause emotional distress. (Wong v. Jing, supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at
p. 1376.) Plaintiffs allege Defendant was aware that its failure to repair and
exterminate the premises occupied by Plaintiffs would likely result in
Plaintiffs’ severe emotional distress. (Complaint, ¶ 45.) If true, this
allegation suggests reckless disregard on Defendant’s part.
Thus,
the court overrules Defendant’s demurrer for this cause of action.
Fifth Cause of Action – Private
Nuisance
Next, Defendant contends this cause
of action fails because it duplicates Plaintiffs’ cause of action for
negligence. (El Escorial Owners’ Assn. v. DLC Plastering, Inc. (2007)
154 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1349 [“Where negligence and nuisance causes of action
rely on the same facts about lack of due care, the nuisance claim is a
negligence claim.”].) The court disagrees. Plaintiffs’ private nuisance claim
is not merely based on Defendant’s alleged negligent conduct. Rather,
Plaintiffs also allege that Defendant intentionally failed to repair the
premises to save money. (Complaint, ¶¶ 11, 12.) Moreover, this intentional
conduct created the alleged nuisance. (Complaint, ¶¶ 49, 51.) Thus, Plaintiffs’
private nuisance claim does not exclusively rely on the same facts that support
their negligence claim. The court overrules Defendant’s demurrer for this cause
of action.
CONCLUSION
The
court overrules Defendant’s demurrer.
Defendant
shall file and serve its answer within 20 days.
Defendant
shall give notice.
Rosa Marie Rice, et al. v. Next
Level Estates, et al.
Defendant’s Motion to Strike
Punitive Damages from Complaint
The court
considered the moving papers and opposition.
BACKGROUND
This
action arises from a landlord-tenant dispute.
On
April 21, 2023, Plaintiffs Rosa Marie Rice (individually and as guardian ad
litem for Hydron Hykiem-Ulysis Roberson and Rosemarie Heavenly Roberson) and
Sirrichard Roberson (Plaintiffs) filed a complaint against Next Level Estates,
Reginald Keith McKizzie, Jewel Smith, and Llama Guys, LLC (Defendant).
The
complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) breach of implied
warranty of habitability, (2) tortious breach of implied warranty of
habitability, (3) negligence, (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress,
(5) private nuisance, (6) violation of Civil Code section 1942.4, (7) violation
of Business and Professions Code section 17200, and (8) violation of the Los
Angeles Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance.
On
August 29, 2023, Defendant filed this motion to strike.
LEGAL STANDARD
A court may strike any “¿irrelevant,
false or improper matter¿inserted in any pleading¿” or any part of a 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¿.) “¿The grounds for a
motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from
any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.¿” (¿Code
Civ. Proc., § 437¿.)¿
DISCUSSION
With
this motion, Defendant asks the court to strike the following references to
punitive damages in the operative complaint: page 11, paragraph 35; page 12,
paragraph 42; page 13, paragraph 47; page 14, paragraph 55; and page 18,
paragraph 75. To that end, Defendant argues Plaintiffs have not alleged
specific facts that would support an award of punitive damages. According to
Defendant, Plaintiffs’ allegations merely sound in negligence and contract.
Moreover, Plaintiffs’ allegations that Defendant’s conduct was willful and
malicious are too conclusory.
In
their opposition, Plaintiffs assert that California law permits them to seek
punitive damages based on their causes of action for tortious breach of implied
warranty of habitability, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and
private nuisance. (See Garcia v. Myllyla (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 990, 994,
999.) And as further discussed below, Plaintiffs may recover punitive damages
based on their cause of action for negligence if Defendant consciously
disregarded their safety. (Hilliard v. A.H. Robins Co. (1983) 148
Cal.App.3d 374, 395.) Plaintiffs also note that they do not allege their cause
of action for violation of Los Angeles Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance against
Defendant. Consequently, Defendant lacks standing to challenge that portion of
the complaint.
Next,
Plaintiffs argue their complaint contains allegations that, if true, would
support an award of punitive damages. Under Civil Code section 3294, a
plaintiff may recover punitive damages when the defendant has been guilty of malice,
oppression, or fraud. Malice can mean despicable conduct carried on by the
defendant with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others. (Civ.
Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(1).) In this context, the defendant must have been
aware of the probable dangerous consequences of his or her conduct and
deliberately failed to avoid those consequences. (Taylor v. Superior Court (1979)
24 Cal.3d 890, 895-896.) Here, Plaintiffs allege Defendant knew about the
subject property’s defects. (Complaint, ¶¶ 12-14.) Defendant also knew that its
failure to repair the defects would likely result in Plaintiffs’ personal
injury and emotional distress. (Complaint, ¶¶ 35, 42, 47, 55, 75.) Even so,
Defendant did not repair the defects to save money. (Complaint, ¶¶ 12, 16.)
Thus, Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts for their punitive damages
request.
CONCLUSION
The
court denies Defendant’s motion to strike in its entirety.
Defendant
shall give notice.