Judge David A. Hoffer, Case 30-2021-1205193 2022-11-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: David A. Hoffer, Case: 30-2021-1205193, Date: 2022-11-07 Tentative Ruling

The defendants’ Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint is OVERRULED as to the 5^th cause of action for Negligence and SUSTAINED without leave to amend as to the 4^th cause of action for Violation of Business and Professions Code §17200 and the 6^th Cause of Action for Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations.

The defendants’ Motion To Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

The plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to requests for production is DENIED.

The plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories is DENIED.

DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

The role of a demurrer is “to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint.” (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994, citations omitted.) In ruling on the demurrer, the court “treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded.” "If the complaint states a cause of action under any theory, regardless of the title under which the factual basis for relief is stated, that aspect of the complaint is good against a demurrer." (Quelimane Co., Inc. v. Stewart Title Guar. Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 38.) However, the court does not “assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law.” (Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967, [citations omitted].)

4^th C/A Business and Professions Code §17200

In the FAC, the plaintiff alleged that the parking rules enacted by the defendants were business practices that fell within Business and Professions Code §17200 as being unlawful, unfair and fraudulent. Plaintiff was granted leave to amend to add additional facts to show how the defendants turned the parking space rules into a business. As the court held in That v. Alders Maintenance Assn (2012) 206 Cal.App.4^th 1419, 1427, “An association does not participate as a business in the commercial market, much less compete in it.” Although plaintiff adds to the previous allegations, Plaintiff has still failed to meet his pleading burden as set forth in the court’s prior ruling. The conclusory claim that HOA is “in the business of buying and selling spaces” is a contention which the court need not and does not accept.

This is the third iteration of the complaint. Defendants have filed two demurrers. “[T]he burden is on the Plaintiff to show the manner in which she may amend, and how the amendment will change the legal effect of the pleading.” (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349). A court should sustain a demurrer without leave to amend where there is no “reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment.” (Chiatello v. City and County of San Francisco (2010) 189 Cal.App.4^th 472, 480-481). Plaintiff has not indicated that he has a reasonable possibility of pleading facts sufficient to state a cause of action. Thus, the court provides no leave to amend.

5^th C/A for Negligence

In the FAC, the plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to advise the defendant of the basis for the Negligence cause of action. In the SAC, plaintiff adds allegations that the basis for the negligence cause of action is the defendants’ negligent failure to abate the nuisance and in the way they communicated with him. Defendants argue that plaintiff should be put to the task of stating such specifics as to whether the dumpsters were too close to the dwellings or whether the maintenance schedule was insufficient. This is a negligence cause of action and not fraud. Defendants can conduct discovery to further explore the details of the plaintiff’s claims.

6^th C/A for Intentional Interference With Contractual Relationship

“It has long been held that a stranger to a contract may be liable in tort for intentionally interfering with the performance of the contract. [Citations.] The elements which a plaintiff must plead to state the cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations are (1) a valid contract between plaintiff and a third party; (2) defendant's knowledge of this contract; (3) defendant's intentional acts designed to induce a breach or disruption of the contractual relationship; (4) actual breach or disruption of the contractual relationship; and (5) resulting damage. [Citations.]” (Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Bear Stearns & Co. (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1118, 1126)

The Court previously sustained the defendants’ Demurrer to the 6^th cause of action in the FAC on the grounds that the allegations did not show either a breach or a disruption of the contractual relationship between plaintiff and his lessor. The Court granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint to correct the deficiency. The additional facts plaintiff added to the SAC do not correct this deficiency. Plaintiff now adds that at some point after his interaction with Bordonali, his rent was raised. Plaintiff does not assert that this was a breach of the agreement and therefore it is presumed that it was not. Rent increases are a not uncommon aspect of a tenancy. Plaintiff also does not allege any disruption to his lease agreement.

MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

A motion to strike may be used to strike punitive damages allegations in a complaint lacking factual foundation. Turman v. Turning Point of Central Calif., Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63. In order to survive a motion to strike punitive damages, the Plaintiff must plead ultimate facts to show it is entitled to such relief. (Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166.)

Plaintiffs are required to plead malice, oppression, or fraud in order to sustain a claim for punitive damages. Hall v. Berkell (1955) 130 Cal.App.2d 800, 804 [no basis to award punitive damages because complaint contains no allegations of malice, oppression, or fraud, nor any demand for exemplary damages]. Conclusory characterization of defendant’s conduct as intentional, willful, and fraudulent is a patently insufficient statement of “oppression, fraud, or malice” within the meaning of §3294. (Brousseau v. Jarrett (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 864, 872.) Regardless of relaxed pleading criteria, “allegations that the Defendant’s conduct was wrongful, willful, wanton, reckless or unlawful do not support a claim for exemplary damages; such allegations do not charge malice.” (G.D. Searle & Co. v. Superior Court (1974) 49 Cal.App.3d 22, 29.)

“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. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(1).) Under California law, to establish malice, it is not sufficient to show that the defendant’s conduct was negligent, grossly negligent or even reckless, since such findings will not support a claim for punitive damages. See, Flyers Body Shop Profit Sharing Plan v. Ticor Title Ins. Co. (1968) 185 Cal.App.3d 1149, 1154-55. Further, punitive damages cannot be pled in conclusory terms, instead the facts supporting a claim for punitive damages must be set out clearly, concisely, and with particularity. (See, Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1041-42, and Lehto v. Underground Construction Co. (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 933, 944.)

Here, as to the punitive damages alleged in connection with the Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations, Item 1 in Defendants’ notice, the motion is granted in light of the foregoing ruling on the Demurrer. Item 5 is also stricken in light of the ruling on the Demurrer. With regard to Items 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 in Defendants’ notice, plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint fails to sufficiently allege facts to establish malice, oppression or fraud. Thus, these items too must be stricken.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Plaintiff’s Motion To Compel Defendant Avenue One Community Association, Inc. to provide further responses to Request For Production 3, and request for sanctions, is denied. Plaintiff has failed to attach and authenticate the actual discovery requests at issue and the responses thereto. Plaintiff has failed to establish that the actual responses were not code compliant or that the motion to compel further responses was timely filed.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES

Plaintiff’s Motion To Compel Defendant Avenue One Community Association, Inc. to provide further responses to Special Interrogatories and request for sanctions is denied. Plaintiff has failed to attach and authenticate the actual discovery requests at issue and the responses thereto. Plaintiff has failed to establish that the actual responses were not code compliant or that the motion to compel further responses was timely filed.

Defendants are to answer the Second Amended Complaint within 10 days.

Counsel for the defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.