Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 25STCV02736, Date: 2025-05-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 25STCV02736    Hearing Date: May 19, 2025    Dept: 74

Sampangiramiah et al. v. Hillside Courtyard LLC et al.

Defendants Hillside Courtyard LLC and Quantumprime Realty, Inc.’s Motion to Strike

BACKGROUND 

This motion arises from a habitability dispute.

Plaintiffs Satish Sampangiramiah, as an individual and guardian ad litem for a minor, and Sangeetha Koop Balasubramanyam, (Plaintiffs) filed a complaint against defendants Hillside Courtyard and Quantumprime Realty Inc. (Defendants) alleging five causes of action: (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability, (3) Breach of Implied Warrant yof Quiet Enjoyment, (4) Negligence, and (5) Constructive Eviction. 

Defendants now move to strike plaintiff’s request for punitive damages.

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 of 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 of 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

Defendants move to strike punitive damages on the grounds that Plaintiffs fail to allege facts showing Defendants 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).)

            Plaintiffs allege that they were subjected to toxic mold throughout their apartment, which was originally reported to Defendants around June 2022.  (Complaint ¶¶ 10, 11.)  According to Plaintiffs, Defendants failed to remedy the conditions when Plaintiff’s notified them in June 2022, then again in December 2022 when Plaintiff’s sought medical treatment and a Department of Public Health evaluation, then again in January after the Department of Public Health’s compliance date to cure the toxic mold passed.  (Complaint ¶¶ 11-13.)  Plaintiffs allege that in February Defendant’s simply painted over the mold, which began to regrow within months.  (Complaint ¶ 14.)  Defendants continued to fail to address the issues until Plaintiffs were finally forced to vacate the premises in March 2023.  (Complaint ¶ 16.)  Plaintiffs properly plead that Defendants’ failure to address the toxic mold was despicable conduct which was carried on with a willful and conscious disregard of the safety of Plaintiffs. 

            Defendants contest that allegations of willful and intentional conduct are conclusory.  The Court finds that allegations that the Defendants both failed to make any effort to remedy the mold infestation after the Department of Health’s inspection, and subsequent decision to paint over the mold, rather than remedy the issue, is sufficient to find that Defendants’ actions were willful and intentional.          

CONCLUSION

            The Court denies Defendants’ Motion to Strike.

            Defendants to give notice.