Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 24STCV14828, Date: 2025-06-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV14828    Hearing Date: June 6, 2025    Dept: 74

Arenas v. Los Angeles Lomod South, Inc.

Defendant Los Angeles Lomod South, Inc.’s Demurrer with Motion to Stike

BACKGROUND 

This motion arises from a habitability dispute.

Plaintiff Elizabeth Arenas, individual and as a Guardian Ad Litem, (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against defendant Los Angeles Lomod South, Inc. (Defendant).  Plaintiff alleges nine causes of action: (1) Breach of Warranty of Habitability: Civil Code section 1941.1; (2) Breach of Warranty of Habitability: Health & Safety Code section 17920.3; (3) Breach of Warranty of Habitability: Civil Code section 1942.4; (4) Negligence – Premise Liability; (5) Nuisance; (6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (7) Breach of Contract; (8) Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment; and (9) Unfair Business Practices.

Defendant demurs to the Fifth, Sixth and Ninth Causes of Action and moves to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages.

DISCUSSION

             Defendant demurs to Plaintiff’s Fifth, Sixth and Ninth Causes of Action on the grounds that the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action. 

Nuisance – Fifth Cause of Action

            The elements of a nuisance cause of action are (1) defendant’s interference with plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of plaintiff’s property, (2) invasion of plaintiff’s use and enjoyment involves substantial actual damage, and (3) interference is unreasonable as to the nature, duration or amount.  (San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 893, 938; Civ. Code, 3479.)  When a nuisance action relies on “the same facts about lack of due care, the nuisance claim is a negligence claim.”  (El Escorial Owners’ Assn. v. DLC Plastering, Inc. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1349.)  Although the causes of action for negligence and nuisance are not identical, they contain the same set of facts.  Defendants violated their duty of care by failing to maintain the property in suitable condition for occupancy.  (Complaint ¶¶ 95, 97, 107, 109.)  Therefore, the Court sustains the demurrer to the fifth cause of action.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress – Sixth Cause of Action

            The elements of an intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action are (1) outrageous conduct by defendant, (2) intentional or reckless causing of emotional distress, (3) severe emotional distress, and (4) causation.  (Huntingdon Life Sciences, Inc. v. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA, Inc. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1259.)  The Complaint must plead specific facts to establish severe emotional distress.  (Michaelian v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1114.) 

            Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s failure to address the habitability issues, including toxic mold contamination, after being notified of the deficiencies by Plaintiff, was outrageous conduct.  (Complaint ¶¶ 115, 116.)  According to Plaintiff, Defendant knew that its disregard of Plaintiff’s living conditions would cause Plaintiff to suffer mental and emotional distress.  (Complaint ¶ 118.)  Plaintiff alleges that Defendant knew about the toxicity and failed to inform Plaintiff.  (Complaint ¶ 120.)  Furthermore, Plaintiff alleges Plaintiff suffered from “ongoing severe mental and emotional distress, humiliation, stress discomfort, annoyance, depression, fear of safety and/or [] physical pain and injury frustration and anxiety.  (Complaint ¶ 123.)  Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff does not sufficiently plead facts to establish severe emotional distress when Plaintiff includes a laundry list of conditions implying mental and emotional distress joined by “and/or”.  The use of the conjoined conjunctions indicates that Plaintiff may have suffered all, some, or just one of these effects but does not plead any useful facts regarding Plaintiff’s condition.  Therefore, the Court sustains the demurrer to the Sixth Cause of Action.

Unfair Business Practices – Ninth Cause of Action

            The elements of an unfair business practices cause of action are (1) a business practice, (2) that is unfair, unlawful or fraudulent, and (3) authorized remedy.  (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.) 

            Plaintiff alleges that Defendant knew that the property, including multiple units, was contaminated with toxic mold and failed to inform Plaintiff.  (Complaint ¶ 27.)  Moreover, Defendant failed to conduct inspections or abate the mold contamination.  (Complaint ¶ 27.)  Plaintiff sufficiently alleges that Defendant engaged in an unfair business practice by failing to notify renters and remedy the mold contamination.  This meets the fraud prong of an Unfair Business Practices cause of action.  Therefore, the Court overrules the demurrer to the ninth cause of action.

            Leave to Amend

            Leave to amend should be liberally granted.  (Goodman, supra, 18 Cal.3d at pp. 348.)  Plaintiff requests leave to amend the complaint, and the Court finds that further clarity on the underlying facts may permit Plaintiff to state a cause of action.  Thus, the Court grants leave to amend.

Strike

Defendant moves to strike punitive damages on the grounds that Plaintiff fails to allege facts showing Defendant acted with malice, fraud or oppression.  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).)

            Plaintiff alleges that she was subjected to toxic mold starting in or around April 2021.  (Complaint ¶ 32.)  Plaintiff made several complaints to Defendant.  (Complaint ¶ 34, 41.)  The mold was not remedied for a substantial period of time and Defendant continued to fail to remedy the toxicity even with notice of Plaintiff’s injuries.  (Complaint ¶ 34-35.) 

            Defendant contend that Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege intent to injure.  The Court finds that Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant’s knowledge of the mold contamination from Plaintiff, prior tenants, and current tenants, as well as the injuries Plaintiff suffered, is sufficient to allege malice.  Therefore, the Court denies Defendant’s Motion to Strike.

CONCLUSION

            The Court sustains in part and denies in part Defendant’s demurrer. The Court sustains Defendant’s demurrer to the Fifth and Sixth causes of action with leave to amend. The Court overrules the demurrer to the Ninth cause of action.

            The Court denies Defendant’s Motion to Strike.

            Defendant to give notice.