Judge: Deirdre Hill, Case: 22TRCV00874, Date: 2023-04-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22TRCV00874    Hearing Date: April 6, 2023    Dept: M

Hearing Date:                         April 6, 2023

Moving Parties:                      Defendants Steven D. Kennedy, et al.

Responding Party:                  Plaintiff Darren Victorian

Motion to Strike

            The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.

RULING

            The motion to strike is DENIED.  Defendants are ordered to file an answer within ten days.

BACKGROUND

            On September 30, 2022, plaintiff Darren Victorian filed a complaint against Steven D. Kennedy and Susan Elizabeth Kennedy, trustees of The Steven D. Kennedy and Susan Elizabeth Kennedy Trust dated August 10, 1999 and Nationwide Property Management, Inc. for (1) statutory breach of warranty of habitability, (2) tortious breach of implied warranty of habitability, (3) negligence, (4) breach of contract, (5) nuisance, (6) breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment, (7) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (8) IIED, and (9) violation of Civil Code §1942.4.

            On February 2, 2023, the court overruled the demurrer to the 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, 5^th, and 9^th causes of action and sustained the demurrer with leave to amend as to the 8^th cause of action.  The court granted the motion to strike with leave to amend as to the allegations and prayer for punitive damages and denied it as to the prayer for attorney’s fees.

            On February 6, 2023, plaintiff filed a FAC for (1) statutory breach of warranty of habitability, (2) tortious breach of implied warranty of habitability, (3) negligence, (4) breach of contract, (5) nuisance, (6) breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment, (7) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and (8) violation of Civil Code §1942.4.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

“The court may, upon a motion . . . , or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper:  (a) Strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.  (b) Strike out 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.”  CCP §436(b).

            CCP §431.10 states:  “(a) A material allegation in a pleading is one essential to the claim or defense and which could not be stricken from the pleading without leaving it insufficient as to that claim or defense.  (b) An immaterial allegation in a pleading is any of the following:  (1) An allegation that is not essential to the statement of a claim or defense.  (2) An allegation that is neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or defense.  (3) A demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint or cross-complaint.  (c) An ‘immaterial allegation’ means ‘irrelevant matter’ as that term is used in Section 436.”

The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice.  CCP §437.

DISCUSSION

            Defendants request that the court strike all portions of the complaint seeking punitive damage at paras. 5 (line 23), 42, 43, 44, 57 (lines 25-26), 68 (lines 20-21), 83 (lines 22-23), 100 (lines 3-4), 119 (line 22), and prayer for exemplary and punitive damages at para. 5.

The FAC alleges that plaintiff is a tenant who resides at 14831 South Normandie Avenue, #20, Gardena, pursuant to a lease agreement.  FAC, ¶1.  Defendants are the current owners or managers of the building.  Id., ¶2.  Plaintiff moved into the property on February 1, 2014.  Id., ¶19.  Plaintiff currently pays a rental amount of $1,145.  Id., ¶20.  On January 4, 2021, plaintiff started to notice water intrusion and mold present at the property.  Id., ¶21.  Plaintiff also identified other substandard issues present at the property, including raw sewage erupting in the bathroom, defective toilet, inadequate plumbing, damaged, cracked or deteriorated walls/ceilings, inadequate lighting, vermin infestation and bugs.  Id., ¶22.  Plaintiff provided actual notice to defendants on January 11, 2021 of the issues present at the property.  Id., ¶¶23, 24.  Plaintiff continuously notified defendants of the issues.  Id., ¶25.  Said issues have substantially interfered with the quiet enjoyment and peace of mind of plaintiff at the property.  Id., ¶26.  Defendants have failed and/or neglected to repair said issues.  Id., ¶27.  Defendants’ failure deprived plaintiff of basic living conditions and full use of the property.  Id., ¶31.  These substandard issues were present while plaintiff ate, slept, and lived every single day.  Id., ¶32.  In spite of plaintiff’s pleas, the issues continued to intensify over time.  Id., ¶33.  Plaintiff has reported said issues to the LA County Health Department reporting multiple health code violations.  Id., ¶34.  Defendants were notified by the LA County Health Department of the multiple health code violations.  Id., ¶35.  The issues have caused plaintiff to have economic and non-economic damages.  Id., ¶36.  The issues have been present for more than 627 days since the day of notice.  Id., ¶37.  The issues were present through the date plaintiff vacated the property after being evicted in retaliation for plaintiff asserting his tenant rights.  Id., ¶38.

Civil Code §3294 authorizes the recovery of punitive damages in non-contract cases where “the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice . . . .”  The Court in Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 894-95, found that “[s]omething more than the mere commission of a tort is always required for punitive damages.  There must be circumstances of aggravation or outrage, such as spite or ‘malice,’ or a fraudulent or evil motive on the part of the defendant, or such a conscious and deliberate disregard of the interests of others that his conduct may be called willful or wanton.”  “In order to survive a motion to strike an allegation of punitive damages, the ultimate facts showing an entitlement to such relief must be pled by a plaintiff.”  Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal. App. 4^th 1253, 1255.

Civil Code §3294(b) states:  “With respect to a corporate employer, the advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, ratification or act of oppression, fraud, or malice must be on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation.”

A tenant may state a cause of action in tort against his landlord for damages resulting from a breach of the implied warranty of habitability.”  Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal. App. 3d 903, 918-19; see also Smith v. David (1981) 120 Cal. App. 3d 101, 112 n.3 (a tenant “may seek general and punitive damages for . . . breach of warranty [of habitability]”).  The court in Stoiber found that plaintiff stated sufficient facts to support exemplary damages when she “alleged that defendant had actual knowledge of defective conditions in the premises including leaking sewage, deteriorated flooring, falling ceiling, leaking roof, broken windows, and other unsafe and dangerous conditions . . . [and] alleged defendants ‘In maintaining said nuisance, . . . acted with full knowledge of the consequences thereof and the damage being caused to plaintiff, and their conduct was willful, oppressive and malicious.’”  Stoiber, supra, at 920 (citation omitted).

Defendants argue that although plaintiff amended the complaint to add language at para. 22 to define the issues with the property, plaintiff still fails to provide sufficient, non-conclusory facts to support punitive damages and that “[a]dding in boilerplate language that mirror the language that was used in Stoiber does not comply with the pleading requirements of ultimate facts.”  Further, defendants contend, the allegations at paras. 42-44 as to why punitive damages are warranted are conclusory as they fail to provide sufficiently clear details about actions defendants were supposed to know about and how their conduct was willful, oppressive, and malicious.  Defendants also assert that as to “written notice” on January 11, 2021, they contend that there is no information detailing the content of the notice and when/to whom it was given.  Also, defendants argue, as against Nationwide, plaintiff has failed to comply with the requisite heightened pleading standards applicable to claims for punitive damages against corporate entities under Civil Code §3294(b). 

In opposition, plaintiff argues that the allegations are sufficient.

            The court rules as follows:  The court finds that the allegations are sufficient to support a claim for punitive damages that defendants acted despicably and with conscious disregard of plaintiff’s health and safety by intentionally and willfully refusing to remediate the issues and failing to repair.  Punitive damages are available for the causes of action alleged.  See Stoiber, supra.  Like in Stoiber, plaintiff alleges that he continuously complained of numerous persistent uninhabitable conditions; defendants had actual knowledge of the defects; defendants failed to repair and correct the problems; and plaintiff reported defendants to the Health Department, which notified defendants of multiple violations.

The motion is DENIED.

            Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the ruling.