Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 23STCV12996, Date: 2024-11-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV12996    Hearing Date: November 15, 2024    Dept: 74

Venegas et al. v. Quiroz.

Defendant Quiroz’s Motion to Strike.

BACKGROUND 

             The motion arises from a habitability complaint.

            On June 07, 2024, Plaintiffs Jorge Venegas and Vanessa Palacios (Plaintiffs) filed complaint against defendant Enriquetta Quiroz (Defendant).

            On October 10, 2024, 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¿.)

In ruling on a motion to strike punitive-damages allegations, judges assume the truth of the pleading allegations.  (Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. v. Superior Court (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 696, 699, fn.1.)  “[J]udges read allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context….” Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255

DISCUSSION

            Defendant contends that Plaintiffs have not pleaded sufficient facts supporting the statutory elements of fraud, oppression or malice.  Malice is defined as “conduct which is intended to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.”  (Civ. Code § 3294(c)(1).)  Oppression is defined as “despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship and conscious disregards of that person’s rights.”  (Civ. Code § 3294(c)(2).)

Plaintiffs allege that they were subjected to (a) cockroaches, (b) toxic mold, (c) offensive odors, (d) dampness of habitable rooms, (e) electrical outages, (f) lack of heating and air conditioning, (g) improper weatherproofing, (h) improper ventilation, and (i) deteriorated and worn walls and ceilings.  (Complaint, ¶ 25.)  Plaintiffs also allege that they made numerous complaints, and Defendant refused to address the problems.  (Complaint, ¶ 32.)  Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s behavior was malicious because of Defendant’s knowing, willful and conscious disregard for the legal and equitable rights of Plaintiffs, as shown by Defendant’s knowledge of the conditions on the property and failure to take corrective actions.  (Complaint, ¶ 42.)  Plaintiffs further allege Defendant’s conduct was oppressive because it subjected Plaintiffs to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights.  (Complaint, ¶ 43.)

With these facts, Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to support malice or oppression because they allege Defendant’s conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ safety and right to habitable housing.

CONCLUSION

            The court denies Defendant’s motion to strike.

            Defendant to give notice.