Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 24STCV11194, Date: 2024-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV11194    Hearing Date: August 9, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On May 3, 2024, Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendant Walnut Creek, LLC alleging habitability issues.

            On July 11, 2024, Defendant filed the instant motion to strike punitive damages from the complaint. Plaintiffs filed their opposition on July 24, 2024.

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.)

MEET AND CONFER

Before filing a demurrer or a motion to strike, the demurring or moving party is required to meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading demurred to or the pleading that is subject to the motion to strike for the purposes of determining whether an agreement can be reached through a filing of an amended pleading that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.41, 435.5.) The Court notes that Defendant has complied with the meet and confer requirement. (See Shapiro Decl.)

DISCUSSION

“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).) Fraud is “intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.” (Id., subd. (c)(3).)

In the habitability context, allegations that a landlord knew of defective conditions and knowingly failed to take corrective action sufficiently support punitive damages. (See Penner v. Falk (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 858, 867; Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 903, 920.) Here, Plaintiffs allege extensive defects with the subject premises, such as faulty electrics, inadequate heating, dysfunctional plumbing, pest infestations, deteriorating walls, and lead hazards. (See Compl. ¶¶ 19, 29.) Despite notice from Plaintiffs and the health department, Defendant has failed to correct the deficiencies. (Id., ¶¶ 26-27.) Instead, Defendant has retaliated against Plaintiffs by entering Plaintiffs’ units for extended periods without making any repairs. (Ibid.) Defendant exploited Plaintiffs’ status as low-income, unsophisticated tenants with little knowledge of the law or access to resources. (Id., ¶ 32.)

These facts go beyond the knowing failure to repair that has been held sufficient for punitive damages. The allegations demonstrate conscious disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights and safety and conduct imposing unjust hardship. Therefore, the complaint in this case adequately pleads a basis for punitive damages.

CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s motion to strike is DENIED.