Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 24STCV06414, Date: 2025-03-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV06414    Hearing Date: March 12, 2025    Dept: 74

Dubon et al. v. LTT Management, LLC  

Defendant LTT Management, LLC’s Demurrer with Motion to Strike

BACKGROUND 

This motion arises from a landlord-tenant habitability dispute.

Plaintiffs Joan Daniel Dubon, Zuri Redondo, individual and guardian ad litem for three minors, and Bray An Dubon (collectively Plaintiffs) filed a complaint against their landlord LTT Management, LLC (defendant).

LTT Management, LLC demurred to the complaint and moved to strike punitive damages.

Plaintiffs filed a notice of non-opposition to the demur.

LEGAL STANDARD

Demurrer

Where a demurrer is sustained, leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment.  (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.)  The burden is on the plaintiff to show the court that a pleading can be amended successfully.  (Id.; Lewis v. YouTube, LLC (2015) 244 Cal.App.4th 118, 226.)  However, “[i]f there is any reasonable possibility that the plaintiff can state a good cause of action, it is error to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend.”  (Youngman v. Nevada Irrigation Dist. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 240, 245).

Motion to Strike

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

Demurrer

            Defendant demurred to the entire complaint on the grounds that it fails to state a cause of action for breach of contract by failing to state the type of contract.  Plaintiffs do not oppose the motion and request leave to amend to plead that the contract was written.  Plaintiffs meet their burden in establishing they can state viable a cause of action with amendment.  Therefore, the Court sustains the demurrer with leave to amend.

Strike

Defendant moves to strike punitive damages in that Plaintiffs fail to allege facts showing Defendant acted with malice, fraud or oppression. Because the Court sustains the demurrer, the motion to strike is moot. But, if the motion to strike were not moot, the court notes that 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) a severe cockroach infestation, (b) a severe bedbug infestation, (c) a severe rodent infestation, (d) lack of working plumbing, and (e) lack of heating.  (Complaint ¶¶ 22, 24-28.)  Plaintiffs allege that they informed Defendant of the condition who failed to remedy the condition.  (Complaint ¶¶ 24-28, 32, 34.)  Plaintiffs allege that Defendant willfully refuses to address the health and safety problems.  (Complaint ¶ 36.)  Plaintiffs allege that they suffered from physical injuries from the conditions.  (Complaint ¶ 29.)  Later in the complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s conduct was intentional and unreasonable, and that the failure was a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.  (Complaint ¶¶ 77, 83.)  Reading the allegations as a whole, the court finds that if the motion to strike is not moot, Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded malice for the purpose of punitive damages.

CONCLUSION

            The Court sustains Defendant’s demurrer to the complaint with leave to amend.  The Motion to Strike is moot.

            Defendant to give notice.