Judge Curtis A. Kin, Case 22STCV29871 2023-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 22STCV29871, Date: 2023-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV29871 Hearing Date: February 28, 2023 Dept: 72

DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE

Date: 2/28/23 (9:30 AM)

Case: Teodora Vasquez, et al. v. Avalon Ctr. Apts. LLC, et al. (22STCV29871)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Royal LLC’s UNOPPOSED Demurrer to Complaint is SUSTAINED.

Defendant Royal LLC’s UNOPPOSED Motion to Strike Portions of Complaint is DENIED.

I. DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT

Defendant Royal LLC demurs to the first cause of action for breach of contract, fourth cause of action for negligence, and fifth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress on the ground that these causes of action are time-barred.

“[A] demurrer based on an affirmative defense [such as the statute of limitations] will be sustained only where the face of the complaint discloses that the action is necessarily barred by the defense.” (Stella v. Asset Management Consultants, Inc. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 181, 191; Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 396.)

With respect to the first cause of action, plaintiffs Teodora Vasquez, Gladys Perez, and Scarlett Vasquez allege the breach of an implied warranty of habitability contained in a written rental contract. (Compl. ¶¶ 20, 22.) The statute of limitations for a breach of contract cause of action “founded upon an instrument in writing” is four years. (CCP § 337(a).) “A cause of action for breach of contract accrues at the time of breach, which then starts the limitations period running.” (Cochran v. Cochran (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1115, 1120.) Plaintiffs allege that in April 2018, they noticed the substandard conditions on which they base the breach of contract cause of action, including an infestation of cockroaches and rodents, mold in the bathtub, leaking walls, and defective carpet. (Compl. ¶¶ 14 [infestation of cockroaches noticed in April 2018], 15-17 [other conditions noticed “[o]n or about the same time”], 22 [defendants breached implied warranty of habitability by allowing substandard conditions to continue].) Plaintiffs also allege that defendants, including Royal LLC, received a citation for sanitation violations, but defendants allowed the conditions to continue. (Compl. ¶ 18.) The Complaint was filed on September 13, 2022, more than four years from April 2018 or June 17, 2019. The first cause of action is time-barred as alleged.

With respect to the fourth cause of action for negligence, “The limitations period for a cause of action for ordinary negligence is two years.” (So v. Shin (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 652, 662, citing CCP §§ 335, 335.1.) “Generally speaking, a cause of action accrues at ‘the time when the cause of action is complete with all of its elements.’ [Citations.]” (Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 797, 806.) “The elements of any negligence cause of action are duty, breach of duty, proximate cause, and damages.” (Peredia v. HR Mobile Services, Inc. (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 680, 687.) Plaintiffs allege that defendants, including Royal LLC, breached their duty of care to safely maintain the subject property in a safe condition in April 2018. (Compl. ¶¶ 14, 15-17, 22, 43, 44.) Defendants’ breach allegedly caused plaintiffs to suffer damages. (Compl. ¶ 46.) The Complaint was filed on September 13, 2022, more than two years from April 2018. Even if the negligence cause of action accrued on June 17, 2019, the date defendants were cited for sanitation violations, the Complaint was filed more than two years after this date as well. The fourth cause of action is time-barred as alleged.

With respect to the fifth cause of action, the statute of limitations for intentional infliction of emotional distress is two years. (Unruh-Haxton v. Regents of University of California (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 343, 356-57, citing CCP § 335.1.) “A cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress accrues, and the statute of limitations begins to run, once the plaintiff suffers severe emotional distress as a result of outrageous conduct on the part of the defendant.” (Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 857, 889.) Plaintiffs allege that they suffered severe emotional distress due to the refusal of defendants, including Royal LLC, to remediate the substandard conditions at the subject property. (Compl. ¶¶ 49, 51.) Plaintiffs allege that they noticed the substandard conditions in April 2018. (Compl. ¶¶ 14-17.) The Complaint was filed on September 13, 2022, more than two years from April 2018. Even if the intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action accrued on June 17, 2019, the date defendants were cited for sanitation violations, the Complaint was filed more than two years after this date as well. The fifth cause of action is time-barred as alleged.

The demurrers to the first, fourth, and fifth causes of action are SUSTAINED with respect to defendant Royal LLC.

II. MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF COMPLAINT

Defendant Royal LLC moves to strike the allegations supporting and the prayer for punitive damages.

With respect to paragraphs 39 and 59 and the prayer for punitive damages, plaintiffs allege that, in April 2018, they noticed substandard conditions at the subject property, including an infestation of cockroaches and rodents, mold in the bathtub, leaking walls, and defective carpet. (Compl. ¶¶ 14-17.) Plaintiffs repeatedly notified defendants, including Royal LLC, of these conditions and requested remediations. (Compl. ¶ 13.) Defendants, including Royal LLC, were also cited for sanitation violations on June 17, 2019. (Compl. ¶ 18.) Despite knowledge of the substandard conditions, defendants allowed the conditions to continue. (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 34, 56.)

Plaintiffs’ allegations rise to the level of malice or oppression. (Civ. Code § 3294(a); 3294(c)(1) [“malice” defined as “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”]; 3294(c)(2) [“oppression” defined as “despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights”].)

With respect to paragraph 52, based on the ruling sustaining the demurrer to the fifth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the motion as to paragraph 52 is MOOT.

The motion to strike is DENIED.

Ten (10) days to amend the first, fourth, and fifth causes of action.