Judge David A. Rosen, Case 22GDCV00077 2023-05-05 Tentative Ruling

Judge: David A. Rosen, Case: 22GDCV00077, Date: 2023-05-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22GDCV00077 Hearing Date: May 5, 2023 Dept: E

Hearing Date: 05/05/2023 – 8:30am

Case No: 22GDCV00077

Trial Date: 07/17/2023

Case Name: LAS HADAS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, a California non-profit mutual benefit corporation v. ROSALES BROS ROOFING, INC, a California corporation

TENTATIVE RULING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE

Moving Party: Defendant, Rosales Bros. Roofing, Inc. (“Defendant”)

Responding Party: Plaintiff, Las Hadas Homeowners Association (“Plaintiff”)

Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC Rule 3.1300): ok
16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP 1005(b)): ok
Proper Address: ok

Opposition and Reply Submitted

RELIEF REQUESTED
Defendant moves to strike the following portions of the SAC:

1. Page 2, paragraph 3, lines 4-5 (“As detailed herein, ROSALES caused significant damage to the ASSOCIATION including claims being made by owners affected by the incident that have asserted and are asserting claims against the ASSOCIATION in connection with the water damage incident.”);

2. Page 3, para. 10, lines 11-26 (“ROSALES has also failed to indemnify and hold harmless the ASSOCIATION in violation and breach of the AGREEMENT. Specifically, on or about July 27, 2021, the ASSOCIATION is informed and believes and thereon alleges that ROSALES caused water damage to the SUBJECT PROPERTY including 1959 Caminito de la Estrella, Glendale CA (the "Unit"). During the course of performing the WORK, ROSALES punctured a fire sprinkler water line that caused water to intrude into the Unit and cause damage to Owner's property and other separate interest items as well as the Owner having to sustain other damages, including personal injury, relocation, packaging of contents, etc. Owners and residents at Las Hadas have asserted claims against the ASSOCIATION, and ROSALES has failed to hold the ASSOCIATION harmless from all such claims, losses, expenses, fees including attorney fees, and costs that have been asserted against the ASSOCIATION in connection with the water damage incident. In addition, ROSALES' negligent acts during the course of the WORK caused significant damage to the common area and other ASSOCIATION-owned property. ROSALES has failed to indemnify and hold harmless the ASSOCIATION by failing to pay for the damages incurred by owners and residents of Las Hadas that are asserting claims against the ASSOCIATION in connection with the water loss incident (collectively, the "BREACHES");

3. Page 4, para. 14, line 12 (“and injuries”);

4. Page 5, para. 22, lines 18-21 (“and represents its members, who are also members of the class of persons for whose protection said building codes and legal statutory standards were adopted”);

5. Page 5, para. 23, lines 23-24 (“and its members”);

6. Page 7-8, paragraphs 42-43 in their entirety (motion to strike express indemnity cause of action as a whole);

7. Page 8, line 16 (“For professional and technical fees, according to proof;

8. Page 8, line 17 (“For attorney fees where authorized by contract, law or proof;

9. Page 8, line 20 (“general”);

Defendant moves pursuant to sections 431.10, 435, and 436 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the grounds that the SAC alleges irrelevant, false, or improper matters, and allegations not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state. Specifically:

(1) plaintiff lacks standing to represent nonparty HOA members for claims for (or irrelevant mention of) personal injury, personal property, and general damages claims by homeowners;

(2) plaintiff seeks to make a claim for express indemnity and attorney’s fees for claims being made against the HOA, but this claim is a “sham” pleading and contradictory to its other claims, in that the HOA claims to represent the owners and defend against them at the same time; and

(3) plaintiff seeks to make a claim for general damages on its own behalf, i.e., noneconomic damages for pain and suffering, although plaintiff is an entity not capable of suffering such damages.

PROCEDURAL
Meet and Confer
Moving party met and conferred. (See Decl. Goldstein ¶3.)

BACKGROUND
The original Complaint in this action was filed on 02/09/2022. The First Amended Complaint was filed on 06/06/2022.

On 09/16/2022, this Court ruled on Defendant’s motion to strike portions of the FAC. The Court partially granted and partially denied Defendant’s motion to strike portions of the FAC.

The instant motion pertains to striking portions of the SAC. The instant SAC pertains to a dispute between a homeowners association and a company that worked on the roof of the subject property. The SAC alleges six causes of action for – (1) Breach of Written Contract, (2) Negligence, (3) Negligence Per Se, (4) Breach of Express Warranty, (5) Breach of Implied Warranty, and (6) Express Contractual Indemnification.

MOTION TO STRIKE LEGAL STANDARD

The court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc. § 436(a).) The court may also strike 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. (Code Civ. Proc. § 436(b).) A motion to strike cannot be based upon the grounds that a complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, but instead is properly based on grounds of superfluous or abusive allegations, or improprieties in form or procedure. (Ferraro v. Camarlinghi (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 509, 528-29.)

The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Code. Civ. Proc. § 437; Turman v. Turning Point of Central California, Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63 [“judges read allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth”].)

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s motion to strike is DENIED in its entirety as to all portions of the SAC that Defendant requested to be stricken. Defendant argued that Plaintiff lacked standing to seek personal injury and personal property damages on behalf of the homeowners. However, per the Court’s reading of the SAC, Plaintiff is not attempting to recover on behalf of the homeowners. Instead, Plaintiff is attempting to recover for damages on behalf of itself and seeking indemnity for claims that have been made or may be made by others against the homeowners’ association. The Court simply does not interpret the SAC as Defendant does. For example, the Court believes Defendant’s characterization of the SAC in its motion at page 10, lines 19-24 is inaccurate.