Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV00186, Date: 2022-10-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV00186    Hearing Date: October 5, 2022    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            This action was initiated on January 3, 2022 by 35 individual Plaintiffs seeking injunctive relief and damages for allegedly uninhabitable conditions in rental units maintained by Defendants. The operative First Amended Complaint was filed on March 10, 2022. Defendant Mashcole Property Management, Inc. answered the complaint on May 17, 2022. On July 27, 2022, Plaintiffs attempted to file a Second Amended Complaint, which was rejected on August 3, 2022 for failure to obtain leave of court. On Defendants 6317 Flora Ave, LLC, Positive Investments, Inc., and Cynthia Valencia filed the instant motion to strike punitive damages from the SAC.

LEGAL STANDARD

Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading, may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part of that pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b).) The court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike (1) any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading and (2) all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Id., § 436.) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Id., § 437.)

DISCUSSION

            “A party may amend its pleading once without leave of the court at any time before the answer, demurrer, or motion to strike is filed . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 472(a).) Here, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint on March 10, 2022, after which at least one Defendant answered on May 17, 2022. Therefore, Plaintiff was required to seek leave of court or obtain a stipulation to file a Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs’ SAC was indeed rejected for this reason. Therefore, the motion to strike against the SAC is moot. Assuming Plaintiffs obtain leave of court or a stipulation to file an SAC, the Court would find the allegations sufficient to support a prayer for punitive damages.

“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.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).) “‘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.” (Id., subd. (c)(1).) “‘Oppression’ means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.” (Id., subd. (c)(2).)

The SAC alleges that Defendants were on notice of the uninhabitable condition of the premises and failed to take any action, instead ignoring the problems to focus on profits. (SAC ¶¶ 5, 6, 61-63.) These allegations contain more than legal buzzwords and sufficiently establish an inference of malice to support punitive damages. The SAC attributes the alleged misconduct to each Defendant, either individually or joint and severally, and alleges that Defendants are alter egos of one another. (Id., ¶¶ 55, 58.) The SAC alleges corporate knowledge and ratification. (Id., ¶ 61.) This is sufficient at the pleading stage.

CONCLUSION

            The motion to strike by Defendants 6317 Flora Ave, LLC, Positive Investments, Inc., and Cynthia Valencia is DENIED as moot. There is no operative Second Amended Complaint because Plaintiffs have not followed the proper procedures for filing an amended complaint.