Judge: Donald F. Gaffney, Case: Stevenson v. Canyon Village Apartment Homes, Date: 2022-11-02 Tentative Ruling

TENTATIVE RULING: 

Motion to Strike Portions of Complaint

Defendants Canyon Village LP and Western National Securities dba Western National Property Management move to strike portions of the Complaint of Plaintiffs Charles Stevenson and Latasha Stevenson. For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED with leave to amend.

A.   MP Complied with Meet and Confer Requirement

Code of Civil Procedure Section 435.5(a) provides the parties must meet and confer prior to filing a motion to strike. Subsection (a)(3) requires the moving party file and serve with the motion a declaration stating its compliance. Failing to meet and confer is not grounds to deny or grant the motion to strike. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435.5(a)(4).)

MP submits a meet and confer declaration in compliance with Code Civ. Proc. § 435.5. (See Safar Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.)

B.   General Principles re Motions to Strike

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 436 the court may, upon a motion made or at any time in its discretion, strike out “any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.”

A motion to strike may be used specifically 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.) A motion to strike can also strike legal conclusions. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide, Civil Proc. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2020) ¶ 7:179.) Conclusory allegations are permitted, however, if they are supported by other factual allegations in the complaint. (Perkins v. Super. Ct. (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 1, 6.)

The grounds for a motion to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or from matters which the court may judicially notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437.) In a motion to strike, a judge must read the complaint as a whole, considering all parts in their context, and must assume the truth of all well-pleaded allegations. (Courtesy Ambulance Serv. v. Super. Ct. (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1504, 1519.)

Motions to strike are disfavored. Pleadings are to be construed liberally with a view to substantial justice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 452; Clauson v. Super. Ct. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255; see also Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civil Proc. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2020) ¶ 7:197.) The use of the motion must be “cautious and sparing” and is not intended to be used as a “procedural ‘line item veto’ for the civil defendant.” (PH II, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1682-83.)

Punitive damages are available in actions “for breach of an obligation not arising from contract.” (See Civ. Code, § 3294(a).) In the absence of an independent tort, punitive damages may not be awarded for breach of contract, even where the defendant’s conduct in breaching the contract was willful, fraudulent or malicious. (Cates Constr., Inc. v. Talbot Partners (1999) 21 Cal.4th 28, 61.)

To plead a claim to recover punitive damages, a plaintiff must plead and show one of the following bases for imposition of exemplary damages, i.e. malice, oppression, or fraud. (Civ. Code, § 3294(a).) The statute specifically defines “malice” to mean “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(c)(1).) “Oppression” is defined to mean “despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights.” (Civ. Code, § 3294(c)(2).)

At the pleading stage, the complaint may rely on ultimate facts of fraud, oppression or malice. (Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood Apartments (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1055.)

To plead a claim to recover punitive damages against an employer based on the acts of an employee, that plaintiff must plead facts showing the employer “had advance knowledge of the unfitness of the employee and employed him or her with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others or authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct for which the damages are awarded or was personally guilty of oppression, fraud or malice. With respect to a corporate employer, the advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, ratification or [wrongful] act must be on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation.” (Civ. Code, § 3294(b).)

C.    Application

Here, the Complaint does not allege facts sufficient to support the punitive damages claim against the moving defendants. The Complaint alleges that Defendants allowed an insect infestation, visible mold and mildew, broken kitchen sink, defective plumbing, defective carpet, and broken doors to exist at the Subject Property. (Compl. ¶ 12.) The Complaint alleges that Defendants ignored Plaintiffs’ repeated pleas or avoided fixing the conditions properly. (Compl. ¶ 14.) These allegations may be sufficient to support malice and/or oppression. Nevertheless, the Complaint fails to allege facts showing that any officer, director, or managing agent of entity defendants had advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorized, ratified, or acted wrongly.

For these reasons, the motion is granted with leave to amend.

Should Plaintiffs desire to file an amended complaint that addresses the issues in this ruling, Plaintiffs shall file and serve the amended complaint within 30 days of service of the notice of ruling.

Defendants to give notice.