Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 24STCV02487, Date: 2024-10-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV02487    Hearing Date: October 4, 2024    Dept: 74

SEAN JENNINGS, et al. vs RONNIE HONGO et al.

Defendants Ronnie Hongo and Raymond Hongo’s Motion to Strike (not Anti-SLAPP).

BACKGROUND 

            This is a Landlord-Tenant case. On January 31, 2024, Plaintiffs Sean Jennings and Candace Hirahara (Plaintiffs) filed suit against Ronnie and Raymond Hongo (Defendants). Plaintiffs allege five causes of action for breach of contract, breach of warranty of habitability, breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, negligence, and tenant harassment.

            Plaintiffs allege beginning on February 1, 2009, they entered into a month-to-month lease to rent the real property located at 2921 6th Avenue, Los Angeles California 90018 (subject property). Defendants owned, maintained, and managed the subject property. Defendants failed to maintain the property in a habitable condition. Uninhabitable conditions included black mold, backup of the sewer lines, rat and rodent infestation, lack of sufficient electrical outlets, a leaky roof, and termites. Plaintiffs requested Defendants repair the issues, but they failed to do so timely.

            Defendants move to strike Plaintiffs’ request for punitive damages for their claims for breach of the warranty of habitability (Compl., ¶27), breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment (Compl., ¶34), and prayer for punitive damages. Plaintiffs did not file an opposition.

LEGAL STANDARD

¿¿            The court may strike out any “irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.” (Code Civ. Proc., §437) To succeed on a motion to strike punitive damages allegations, it must be said as a matter of law that the alleged behavior was not so vile, base, or contemptible that it would not be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people. (Angie M. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1228-1229.) The mere allegation an intentional tort was committed is not sufficient to warrant an award of punitive damages. (Grieves v. Superior Ct. (1984) 157 Cal. App. 3d 159, 166.) Punitive damages are available in non-contract actions where a defendant is guilty of malice, fraud, or oppression. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c) [defining malice, fraud, and oppression].)

DISCUSSION 

            Defendant argues that the claim for punitive damages is insufficiently alleged and/or not properly permitted on the cause of action.

In Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 903, 920 (Stoiber), the court held that a claim for punitive damages was adequately alleged when the complaint alleged that “defendant had actual knowledge of the defective conditions in the premises including leaking swage, deteriorated flooring, falling ceiling, leaking roof, broken windows and other unsafe and dangerous conditions” and that defendant “acted with full knowledge of the consequences thereof and the damage being caused to plaintiff, and their conduct was willful, oppressive and malicious.”  Plaintiffs have alleged similar facts here, and thus have adequately stated a claim for punitive damages.  (See also Smith v. David (1981) 120 Cal.App.3d 101, n.3 [punitive damages available for intentional tortious breach of the warranty of habitability].) However, as Defendants correctly point out, punitive damages are not available for the claim for breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment. (See Ginsberg v. Gamson (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 873, 896, 897.) Accordingly, the court strikes paragraph thirty-four requesting punitive damages for the breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment.

CONCLUSION 

The court grants Defendants’ motion to strike in part. The Motion to Strike paragraph 34 is granted. In all other respects, the motion is denied.

Defendants shall give notice.