Judge: Craig Griffin, Case: Agranovich vs. Lynn, Date: 2022-11-07 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants Felix Agranovich and Katherine Agranovich (“Plaintiffs”) Motion for Summary Adjudication (“Motion”) as to the punitive damages claim in defendants Maya Lynn (“Maya” individually) and Brent Lynn’s (“Brent” individually; “Defendants” together with Maya) Second Amended Cross-Complaint is DENIED.

“[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. That is because of the general principle that a party who seeks a court's action in his favor bears the burden of persuasion thereon. (See Evid. Code, § 500.) There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.”  (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 850.)

“The motion for summary judgment shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. In determining if the papers show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact, the court shall consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers, except the evidence to which objections have been made and sustained by the court, and all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence, except summary judgment shall not be granted by the court based on inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence if contradicted by other inferences or evidence that raise a triable issue as to any material fact.”  (Civ. Proc. Code § 437c(c).)

“(f)(1) A party may move for summary adjudication as to . . . one or more claims for damages. . . if the party contends that . . . there is no merit to a claim for damages, as specified in Section 3294 of the Civil Code, or that one or more defendants either owed or did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or plaintiffs. A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of . . . a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.

(2) A motion for summary adjudication may be made by itself or as an alternative to a motion for summary judgment and shall proceed in all procedural respects as a motion for summary judgment. A party shall not move for summary judgment based on issues asserted in a prior motion for summary adjudicate on and denied by the court unless that party establishes, to the satisfaction of the court, newly discovered facts or circumstances or a change of law supporting the issues reasserted in the summary judgment motion.”  (Civ. Proc. Code § 437c(f).)

“For purposes of motions for summary judgment and summary adjudication:

. . .

(2) A defendant or cross-defendant has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action, even if not separately pleaded, cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action. Once the defendant or cross-defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff or cross-complainant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto. The plaintiff or cross-complainant shall not rely upon the allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.”  (Civ. Proc. Code § 437c(p)(2).)

“(a) In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.

. . .

(c) As used in this section, the following definitions shall apply:

(1) “Malice” means conduct which is intended by the defendant 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.

(2) “Oppression” means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights. . .”  (Civ. Code § 3294.)

It is not sufficient to allege merely that a defendant “acted with oppression, fraud or malice.”  A plaintiff must allege specific facts showing that defendant’s conduct was oppressive.  (Smith v. Sup.Ct. (Bucher) (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1041-1042; Anschutz Entertainment Group, Inc. v. Snepp (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 598, 643.)  “ ‘ “Despicable conduct” is conduct that is so “vile, base, contemptible, miserable, wretched or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people.” ’ [Citation.] ‘Such conduct has been described as “[having] the character of outrage frequently associated with crime.”  (Scott v. Phoenix Schools, Inc. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 702, 715 (“Scott”.) 

Plaintiffs seek adjudication as to punitive damages claims based on oppression and malice.  Those punitive damage claims are identified in SACC ¶¶ 43, 59, 69, 71, 79.  The allegations that Defendants appear to claim support punitive damages against Plaintiff essentially equate to 1) Plaintiffs and/or their agents entering Defendants’ property and cutting/damaging Defendants’ landscaping; 2) Plaintiffs’ taking pictures/video of Defendants’ and their property, and eavesdropping on Defendants; 3) Plaintiffs’ damaging Defendants’ property by permitting water to run into it, and by removing paint, re-painting, and/or adding tiles; 4) Plaintiffs prohibiting Defendants from using a security system; and 5) Plaintiffs trying to prohibit Defendants’ daughter from playing tennis on Defendants’ tennis court.

In order for the Motion to be granted, Plaintiffs must first meet their initial burden of showing the punitive damages claims are not supported and then completely dispose of each and every issue that might support punitive damages claims.  (Civ. Proc. Code § 437c(f)(1).) 

Although Plaintiffs met their initial burden (and Defendants failed to meet their transferred burden) on the above issue numbers 1 and 3, Plaintiffs failed to meet their initial burden on above issues numbers 2, 4, and 5.

As to issue Nos. 2, 4, and 5, the only evidence Plaintiffs produced was Defendants’ discovery responses wherein Defendants claim Plaintiffs took pictures/video, eavesdropped on Defendants, prohibited Defendants from using a security camera, and tried to prohibit Defendants’ daughter from playing tennis on Defendants’ tennis court.  This evidence supports Defendants’ case and not Plaintiffs case.

As noted in the court’s prior ruling on Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Second Supplemental Complaint, photographing and videotaping an individual on their property and in their home would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and a party’s intentional act of doing so would be done with a conscious disregard to a person’s right to privacy.  (ROA #942.)  Plaintiffs failed to meet their initial burden of showing they did not record, videotape, or eavesdrop on Defendants, that Plaintiffs’ actions were not done with malice or oppression, and that there is no merit as to the punitive damages claim on this issue. 

As to prohibiting Defendants’ use of their security system if Plaintiffs actually and intentionally damaged Defendants’ security system, that would be conduct which is intended to cause injury to Defendants with a willful and conscious disregard of Defendants rights to their private property which supports malice and oppression.  Again, Plaintiffs did not meet their initial burden of showing there is no merit as to the punitive damages claim on this issue and provided no evidence supporting such. 

Finally, regarding the tennis playing, Depending on the extent to which Plaintiffs might have gone to prohibit tennis playing, it may or may not meet the malice and/or oppression prongs supporting punitive damages.  There is no evidence one way or the other regarding the specifics Plaintiffs took to prohibit tennis other than filing the present lawsuit as Plaintiffs have alleged the tennis playing is a noise nuisance.  Thus, Plaintiffs have produced no evidence one way or the other regarding this issue aside from Defendants’ discovery responses.

Even if Plaintiffs had failed to meet their initial burden of disposing of only one of the issues Defendants claim support punitive damages, this court would be required to deny the Motion as it would not completely dispose of the entire punitive damage claim. (Civ. Proc. Code § 437c(f)(1).) 

The Motion is DENIED.

Defendants to give notice.