Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 22STCV39779, Date: 2024-01-02 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties
concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon
resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an
agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if
you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by
notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SMCDept71@LACourt.org.  Include
the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject
line.  In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the
hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and
whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant,
cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.



           
Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear
at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue
the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the
argument.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties
in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to
argue.  If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words
"SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.    
If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via
Court-Connect.

If
the moving party fails to appear and/or submit to the Court’s tentative ruling,
the Court will take the  matter off calendar.

                       
  

            Note
that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent
authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative
ruling as the order of the court. 
 

 

            If you
submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or
thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the
court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.  

Case Number: 22STCV39779    Hearing Date: January 2, 2024    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Moving Defendants Willabee Property Management’s, Rebecca Proo’s, Michael Proo’s, and Joining Defendants Henry Arce’s and Elizabeth Arce’s motion to strike portions of Plaintiffs Sherry Smith’s, Marquis Smith’s, Jeremiah Smith’s, Faith Smith’s, Joseph Smith’s, and Nehemiah Smith’s first amended complaint is granted with 20 days leave to amend.

Defendants Henry Arce’s and Elizabeth Arce’s unopposed motion to strike portions of Plaintiffs Sherry Smith’s, Marquis Smith’s, Jeremiah Smith’s, Faith Smith’s, Joseph Smith’s, and Nehemiah Smith’s first amended complaint is granted with 20 days leave to amend.

Moving Defendants Willabee Property Management (“WPM”), Rebecca Proo (“Rebecca”), and Michael Proo (“Michael”) (collectively, “Moving Defendants”) and Joining Defendants Henry Arce (“Henry”) and Elizabeth Arce (“Elizabeth”) (collectively, “Joining Defendants”) move to strike portions of Plaintiffs Sherry Smith’s (“Sherry”), Marquis Smith’s (“Marquis”), Jeremiah Smith’s (“Jeremiah”), Faith Smith’s (“Faith”), Joseph Smith’s (“Joseph”), and Nehemiah Smith’s (“Nehemiah”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) claim for punitive damages in their first amended complaint (“FAC”), in paragraphs 6, 78, 100, 113, 122, 128, 155, and on page 25, line 22, page 26, lines 11, 24, page 27, lines 3, 7, and 26, on the ground Plaintiffs failed to allege facts to warrant these claims.  (Notice of MTS WPM, pg. 1; C.C.P. §435.)

Henry and Elizabeth also move separately to strike the entire FAC, or alternatively, entire paragraphs 2, 4, 29, 41, 46, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 71, 73, 77, 78, 85, 87, 92, 93, 94, 99, 100, 101, 107, 113, 118, 122, 125, 126, 128, 132, 133, 135, 136, 137, 139, 144, 145, 146, 147, 152, 153, 154, 155, 158, 159, 163, 164, 169, 170, and 171.  (Notice of MTS Arce, pg. 2; C.C.P. §§435(b)(1), 436, 437; CRC, Rule 3.1322.)

Henry and Elizabeth also move to strike the following portions of the FAC: (1) ¶5 “each Defendant failed and refused to take the necessary measures to make the Property habitable and safe”; (2) ¶6 “In light of the egregious nature of Defendants’ behavior, which can only be described as willful, oppressive, and malicious, Plaintiffs also seek punitive damages”; (3) ¶¶15, 16 “but has failed and/or refused to do so”; (4) ¶48 “Defendants, however, did not complete the repairs following this conversation with the City of Hawthorne, or anytime thereafter. Plaintiffs, as stated herein, remain in the Home”; (5) ¶50 “However, these repair efforts were neither prompt nor, as of this filing, anywhere near complete. Defendants’ recent remediation efforts have not addressed the structural problems in the Home and do not diminish the damages that Plaintiffs incurred due to living for years in the uninhabitable conditions”; (6) ¶51 “Defendants have breached their common law and statutory duties of care by failing to repair and maintain the Property. Defendants’ gross failure to maintain the habitability of the Property has threatened the health and safety of Plaintiffs and the larger community”; (7) ¶51 “the Arce Defendants directly, or through their agents, observed and were aware of the uninhabitable and hazardous conditions. Yet, they intentionally refused to take corrective action and ratified their employees’, agents’, and other such representatives’ failure to take corrective action”; (8) ¶66 “each Defendant failed and refused to take necessary corrective measures throughout the Property”; (9) ¶84 “Defendants had actual and constructive notice of the defective conditions alleged herein, but despite such notice, failed to adequately repair and abate the conditions at the Property”; (10) Prayer ¶1(e) “Punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial”; (11) Prayer ¶3(d) “Statutory damages of $2,000.00 for each violation pursuant to Civil Code section 1940.2(b)”; (12) Prayer ¶3(e) “Punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial”; (13) Prayer ¶3(f) “Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs as the prevailing party for breach of a covenant in an agreement for a lease of real property under Civil Code section 3304”; (14) Prayer ¶4(d)[1] “Punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial”; (15) Prayer ¶5(c) “exemplary and punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial”; (16) Prayer ¶6(b) “Punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial”; (17) Prayer ¶7(d) “Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to Civil Code section 1942.4(b)(2)”; (18) Prayer ¶8(c) “Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to Civil Code section 789(c)(3)”; (19) Prayer ¶9(b) “Punitive damages in an amount of not less than $100 nor more than $2,000 for each retaliatory act where the lessor or agent has been guilty of fraud, oppression, or malice with respect to that act per Civil Code 1942.5(h)”; (20) Prayer ¶9(c) “Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to Civil Code section 1942.5(i)”; (21) Prayer ¶10(c) “Reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, in an amount to be determined after trial”; (22) Prayer ¶11(c) “Civil penalty of no less than $2,000 and no more than $5,000 for each violation, pursuant to LACC section 8.52.130.C”; (23) Prayer ¶11(d) “Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, at the discretion of the Court”; and (24) Prayer ¶12(b) “Reasonable attorneys’ fees, where allowed by law.”  (Notice of MTS Arce, pgs. 2-4; C.C.P. §§435(b)(1), 436, 437; CRC, Rule 3.1322.)  Henry and Elizabeth move on the grounds that the allegations in the FAC contain irrelevant, false, and improper matter, and the conclusory language of the allegations in the FAC relative to punitive damages is improper and not in conformity with the laws of the state of California, as the FAC does not allege any intentional and/or despicable conduct by Defendant as grounds for punitive damages.  (Notice of MTS Arce, pg. 4; C.C.P. §§436(a)-(b).)

           Request for Judicial Notice

           Moving Defendants’ 8/25/23 request for judicial notice of the complaint, motion to strike the initial complaint, this Court’s 6/28/23 Minute Order, and the FAC is denied, as the Court does not need to take judicial notice of filings in the instant case.

Background

Plaintiffs filed their initial Complaint on December 22, 2022, against Moving Defendants and Joining Defendants (collectively, “Defendants”).  On June 28, 2023, this Court overruled Moving Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiff’s initial complaint and granted their motion to strike Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages with 30 days leave to amend.  On July 27, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the operative FAC alleging eleven causes of action: alleging eleven causes of action: (1) negligence; (2) breach of implied warranty of habitability; (3) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment; (4) nuisance; (5) premises liability; (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (7) collection of rent for substandard dwelling; (8) constructive eviction and willful interruption of services; (9) retaliation; (10) violation of unfair competition law; and (11) harassment.  Plaintiffs’ causes of action stem from their tenancy at a rental home located at 12117 Menlo Avenue, Hawthorne, CA 90250, APN 4046-005-021 (“Property” or “Home”).  (FAC ¶1.)

1.    Moving Defendants’ and Joining Defendants’ Motion to Strike

Procedural Background

On August 25, 2023, Moving Defendants filed the instant motion.  On August 28, 2023, Joining Defendants filed their notice of joinder to the instant motion.  On December 18, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their opposition.  On October 11, 2023, Moving Defendants filed their reply.

Meet and Confer

Before filing a motion to strike, moving party’s counsel must meet and confer, in person or by telephone, with counsel for the party who filed the pleading in an attempt to reach an agreement that would resolve the objections to the pleading and obviate the need for filing a motion to strike.  (C.C.P. §435.5.)  A declaration must be filed with the motion to strike regarding the results of the meet and confer process.  (C.C.P. §435.5(a)(3).)

Moving Defendants’ counsel declares that on August 18, 2023, he met and conferred with Plaintiffs’ counsel by telephone regarding the deficiencies addressed in the instant motion, and the parties were unable to come to an agreement.  (Decl. of Minasyan ¶2.)  Therefore, Moving Defendants’ motion to strike is proper.

Legal Standard

C.C.P. §436 provides that the Court may, upon a motion made pursuant to C.C.P. §435, or at any time within its discretion and upon terms it deems proper, “strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.”  (C.C.P. §436(a).)

Punitive Damages

Punitive damages may be recovered upon a proper showing of malice, fraud, or oppression.  (Civ. Code §3294(a).)  “Malice” is defined as conduct intended to cause injury to a person or despicable conduct carried on with a willful and conscious disregard for the rights or safety of others.  (Turman v. Turning Point of Central California, Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63.)  “Oppression” means despicable conduct subjecting a person to cruel and unjust hardship, in conscious disregard of the person’s rights.  (Id.)  “Fraud” is an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known by defendant, with intent to deprive a person of property, rights or otherwise cause injury.  (Id.)  Conclusory allegations, devoid of any factual assertions, are insufficient to support a conclusion that parties acted with oppression, fraud, or malice.  (Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1042.)

“Conduct which warrants punitive damages must be of ‘such severity or shocking character [as] warrants the same treatment as accorded to willful misconduct – conduct in which defendant intends to cause harm.’”  (Woolstrum v. Mailloux (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 10, quoting Nolin v. National Convenience Stores, Inc. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 279, 286.)  “[C]onclusory characterization of defendant’s conduct as intentional, willful and fraudulent is a patently insufficient statement of ‘oppression, fraud, or malice, express or

implied,’ within the meaning of section 3294.”  (Brousseau v. Jarrett (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 864, 872.)

Plaintiffs fail to allege facts that would constitute “malice, fraud or oppression” or would reflect “despicable conduct” on behalf of Defendants.  Plaintiffs allege that Defendants knowingly failed and refused to abate a dangerous and unhealthy nuisance, failed to maintain the Property in a sanitary and safe condition, threatened to evict Plaintiffs after they complained about the conditions, and blatantly ignored government orders to comply with applicable laws, which does not allege malice, oppression, or fraud.  (FAC ¶125; see Nolin v. National Convenience Stores, Inc. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 279, 285-286 [determining carelessness, characterized as negligence or recklessness, is not sufficient to support an award of punitive damages].)

Plaintiffs’ three new paragraphs added in support of their claim for punitive damages based on service of the 90-Day Notice to Quit as a retaliatory tactic does not rise to the level of malice, oppression, or fraud, and is conclusory in nature.  (See FAC ¶¶60-62; Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166 [“The mere allegation that an intentional tort was committed is not sufficient to warrant an award of punitive damages. [Citation.] Not only must there be circumstances of oppression, fraud, or malice, but facts must be alleged in the pleading to support such a claim.”].)

Plaintiffs argue if the Court grants any part of Defendants’ motion to strike, it should grant Plaintiffs leave to amend because they could add greater specificity to their allegations regarding the basis for punitive damages.  (Vaccaro v. Kaiman (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 761, 768.)

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to strike punitive damages is granted.

Conclusion

Moving and Joining Defendants’ motion to strike is granted with 20 days leave to amend.

Moving Party to give notice.

2.    Henry and Elizabeth’s Motion to Strike

Procedural Background

On September 27, 2023, Henry and Elizabeth filed the instant motion.  As of the date of this hearing no opposition has been filed.

Meet and Confer

Henry and Elizabeth’s counsel declares that on August 28, 2023, he met and conferred with Plaintiffs’ counsel by telephone regarding the deficiencies addressed in the instant motion, and the parties were unable to come to an agreement.  (Decl. of Sharifi ¶¶6-7.)  Therefore, Henry’s and Elizabeth’s motion to strike is proper.

Punitive Damages

For the same reasons stated regarding Moving and Joining Defendants’ motion to strike punitive damages, Henry and Elizabeth’s motion to strike punitive damages is granted.

Conclusion

Henry and Elizabeth’s unopposed motion to strike is granted with 20 days leave to amend.

Moving Party to give notice.

Dated:  January _____, 2024