Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 25STCV01715, Date: 2025-06-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 25STCV01715    Hearing Date: June 4, 2025    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On January 22, 2025, Plaintiff Samuel Frank filed this action against Defendant Janet Y. Lee, trustee of the Lee Trust. The complaint asserts (1) failure to provide a habitable dwelling, (2) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, (3) nuisance, and (4) negligence.

            The subject property allegedly suffered from a range of defects, including infestations, broken windows, faulty electrics, plumbing issues, and structural deterioration. (Compl. ¶ 13.) Plaintiff allegedly notified Defendant of each of these issues. (Ibid.) Defendant allegedly failed to address the uninhabitable conditions. (Id., ¶¶ 12, 33.)

            On April 16, 2025, Defendant filed the instant motion to strike punitive damages from the complaint. Plaintiff filed his opposition on May 21, 2025.

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 finds that Defendant has satisfied the meet and confer requirement. (See Garcia 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).)

            The complaint alleges with specificity the defective conditions in the subject property and alleges that Plaintiff notified Defendant of the conditions. (Compl. ¶ 13.) Defendant was allegedly on notice that such conditions posed serious health risks to Plaintiff, yet Defendant failed to remedy the defects. (Id., ¶¶ 26, 27, 33, 37, 42.) For pleading purposes, this sufficiently demonstrates a conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights or safety, or the imposition of unjust hardship. Therefore, the complaint adequately pleads a basis for punitive damages.

CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s motion to strike is DENIED.