Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 23STCV30466, Date: 2024-08-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV30466    Hearing Date: August 12, 2024    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Adriana T. Dermenjian’s motion to strike portions of Plaintiff Sichting Walker’s complaint is granted with 20 days leave to amend.

Defendant Adriana T. Dermenjian (“Dermenjian”) (“Defendant”) [Doe 1] moves to strike portions of Plaintiff Sichting Walker’s (“Walker”) (“Plaintiff”) complaint (“Complaint”) to support an award for punitive damages in the following portions of the Complaint: (1) ¶31 “Defendants’ conduct described above was willful, wanton, intentional, despicable, malicious, and initiated with malice and with the intent to knowingly take advantage of, oppress, and injure Plaintiff. Defendants at all times acted with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights of safety of Plaintiff. Defendants were at all times aware that there was high probability that their intentional and/or negligent failure to repair and maintain the Property would injure Plaintiff and cause her personal injury, emotional distress, and property damages. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an aware of punitive and exemplary damages under and pursuant to Civil Code, Section 3294 and Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890.”; (2) ¶38 “Defendants’ conduct described above was willful, wanton, intentional, despicable, malicious, and initiated with malice and with the intent to knowingly take advantage of, oppress, and injure Plaintiff. Defendants at all times acted with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights of safety of Plaintiff. Defendants were at all times aware that there was high probability that their intentional and/or negligent failure to repair and maintain the Property would injure Plaintiff and cause her personal injury, emotional distress, and property damages. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an aware of punitive and exemplary damages under and pursuant to Civil Code, Section 3294 and Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890.”; (3) ¶61 “Defendants’ conduct described above was willful, wanton, intentional, despicable, malicious, and initiated with malice and with the intent to knowingly take advantage of, oppress, and injure Plaintiff. Defendants at all times acted with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights of safety of Plaintiff. Defendants were at all times aware that there was high probability that their intentional and/or negligent failure to repair and maintain the Property would injure Plaintiff and cause her personal injury, emotional distress, and property damages. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an aware of punitive and exemplary damages under and pursuant to Civil Code, Section 3294 and Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890.”; (4) ¶69 “Plaintiff is further entitled to an award of exemplary damages, because the acts of Defendants were intentional, despicable, in that they were in knowing violation of law. Defendants had actual knowledge of the defective conditions in the premises, including a damage ceiling, and other unsafe and dangerous conditions, and failed and refused to adequately remediate the conditions even though legally obligated to do so. Defendants’ refusal to comply with the law governing their duties to their tenants was willful, and done in order to increase their own profits, intentionally oppressing the Plaintiff, and knowingly cause Plaintiff physical injury, annoyance, fear, and mental suffering.”; (5) ¶70 “Defendants’ conduct described above was willful, wanton, intentional, despicable, malicious and initiated with malice and with the intent to knowingly take advantage of, oppress, and injure Plaintiff. Defendants at all times acted with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights of safety of Plaintiff. Defendants were at all times aware that there was a high probability that their intentional and/or negligent failure to repair and maintain the Property would injure Plaintiff and cause her personal injury, emotional distress and property damage. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an award of punitive and exemplary damages under and pursuant to Civil Code, Section 3294 and Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890.”; (6) ¶78 “Defendants’ conduct described above was willful, wanton, intentional, despicable, malicious and initiated with malice and with the intent to knowingly take advantage of, oppress, and injure Plaintiff. Defendants at all times acted with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights of safety of Plaintiff. Defendants were at all times aware that there was a high probability that their intentional and/or negligent failure to repair and maintain the Property would injure Plaintiff and cause her personal injury, emotional distress and property damage. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an award of punitive and exemplary damages under and pursuant to Civil Code, Section 3294 and Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890.”; (7) Prayer 1 Cause of Action “2. For punitive and exemplary damages according to proof”; (8) Prayer 2 Cause of Action “5. For punitive and exemplary damages according to proof”; (9) Prayer 4 Cause of Action “10. For punitive and exemplary damages according to proof”; (10) Prayer 5 Cause of Action “13. For punitive and exemplary damages according to proof”; (11) Prayer 6 Cause of Action “16. For punitive and exemplary damages according to proof”; and (12) Prayer 9 Cause of Action “23. For punitive and exemplary damages according to proof”.  (Notice of MTS, pgs. 1-4; C.C.P. §436.)

Background

Plaintiff filed her operative Complaint on December 14, 2023, against Defendant Figure 8 Realty, Inc. alleging nine causes of action: (1) negligence; (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (3) breach of the implied warranty of habitability; (4) tortious breach of implied warranty of habitability; (5) private nuisance; (6) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment; (7) violation of Civil Code §1942.4; (8) violation of the UCL; and (9) premises liability.  On March 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Doe Amendment identifying Dermenjian as Doe 1.

On June 3, 2024, Dermenjian filed the instant motion.  On August 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed her opposition.  On August 5, 2024, Dermenjian filed her reply.

Meet and Confer

Before filing a motion to strike, moving party’s counsel must meet and confer, in person, telephone, or by video conference 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).)

Dermenjian’s counsel declares that on or about May 23, 2024, she spoke with Plaintiff’s counsel by telephone regarding the instant motion, and the parties were unable to come to an agreement.  (See Decl. of Winter ¶5.)  Therefore, Defendant’s motion to strike is proper.

Motion to Strike

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).)

Summary of Motion

Dermenjian moves to strike portions of the Complaint pertaining to punitive damages on the basis Plaintiff’s complaint alleges nothing more than conduct that might support claims of negligence and Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendants acted willfully, wantonly, intentionally, maliciously, or with conscious disregard for the health and safety of plaintiff rests on legal conclusions.  (Motion, pgs. 7-10.)

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 Cent. Cal., 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.)  “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.”  (Scott v. Phoenix Schools, Inc. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 702, 715.)

  “[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.)

          Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges:

At all relevant times during Plaintiff’s tenancy, Apt. 2 was unsafe, unsanitary, unhealthy, and uninhabitable and subject to, but not limited to, the following substandard conditions:

(a)  Water intrusion/leaks;

(b)  Mold and mildew conditions caused by water intrusion/leaks;

(c)  Damaged ceiling and walls;

(d)  Water stains on the ceiling;

(e)  Defective on non-functioning carbon monoxide detectors;

(f)   Collapsed ceiling;

(g)  Peeling paint throughout the unit (walls, cabinets, ceiling…);

(h)  Deteriorating cabinets;

(i)    Cockroach infestation;

(j)    Cracked tiles; and

(k)  Deteriorated kitchen counters[.]

(Complaint ¶19.)

          Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that the Property was subjected to even more illegal conditions than those mentioned herein which continuously plagued Plaintiff during her tenancy.  (Complaint ¶20.)  Plaintiff alleges at all relevant times, Defendants had actual and/or constructive notice of the following defects yet failed to take timely or reasonable steps to abate and/or remedy the defects. (Complaint ¶20.)  Plaintiff alleges any repairs that were undertaken by Defendants were inadequate and/or exacerbated the subject problem (i.e., Painting over damaged ceiling), Defendants failed to repair and abate the defects at Apt. 2 to save money and increase Defendants’ cash flow and net income.  (Complaint ¶20.)  Plaintiff alleges discovery of Defendants’ profit and loss statements will reveal that, at all relevant times, Defendants failed to spend sufficient monies on repairs and maintenance consistent with the applicable standard of care.  (Complaint ¶20.)

          Plaintiff alleges Apt. 2 and the Property have been subject to persistent water leaks, which has damaged the entire ceiling, has peeled most of the paint and has caused Plaintiff severe injuries and property damage because a part of the ceiling and the polluted water contained in it collapsed on her while she was in her bedroom causing Plaintiff physical injuries.  (Complaint ¶21.)  Plaintiff alleges during the time of her tenancy, the chronic water leaks interfered with her use and

enjoyment of the premises and reduced the habitability of the unit and has caused Plaintiff significant bodily injury and emotional distress.  (Complaint ¶21.)  Plaintiff alleges Plaintiff has skin irritation and pain in her shoulders and neck due to the polluted water and the part of the ceiling that collapsed on her.  (Complaint ¶21.)  Plaintiff alleges her belongings were also damaged by the water leak and ceiling collapse, her shoes, clothes, bed, and other items became covered in mold/mildew and were damaged.  (Complaint ¶21.)  Plaintiff alleges Defendants intentionally and/or negligently failed to properly repair, eliminate, and abate the

damaged ceiling and the water leaks at Apt. 2 and the Property among other defects listed herein.  (Complaint ¶21.)

Plaintiff’s allegations pertaining to Demerjian’s knowledge of the allegedly unsafe conditions at the Property are insufficient to allege malice.  (See Complaint ¶21; G.D. Searle & Co. v. Superior Court (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 22, 30.)  Plaintiff does not allege conduct by Defendant arising to the level of despicable conduct.  Plaintiff’s causes of action all sound in negligence.  (See Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 895, 900.)  Further, Plaintiff’s allegations pertaining to Defendant’s knowledge of the conditions of the Property are conclusory.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages from the Complaint is granted with 20 days leave to amend. 

Conclusion

Defendant’s motion to strike is granted with 20 days leave to amend.

Moving Party to give notice.

Dated:  August _____, 2024