Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 23STCV11542, Date: 2023-09-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV11542 Hearing Date: September 20, 2023 Dept: 68
Shaye Johnson vs. William Hernandez, et al.; Case No. 23STCV11542
MOVING PARTIES: Defendants William Hernandez dba Aspire Property Management and H&K Management LLC
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Shaye Johnson
Demurrer to Complaint with Motion to Strike
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Shaye Johnson filed a complaint against Defendants William Hernandez dba Aspire Property Management and H&K Management LLC (Defendants) and several other Defendants on May 22, 2023. The Complaint alleges 14 causes of action related to Plaintiff’s tenancy at a property owned and/or managed by Defendants. The causes of action to which Defendants have demurred are Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action for Tortious Breach of the Warranty of Habitability and Plaintiff’s Sixth Cause of Action for Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment.
Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that there were several issues with habitability at the property during her tenancy, including but not limited to cockroach infestation, mold contamination, ceiling collapse, dysfunctional plumbing systems, dysfunctional electrical systems, lack of heating and air conditioning, improper weatherproofing, termite infestation, deficient fire protection systems, dampness of habitable rooms, extensive water damage, and general deterioration. Plaintiff alleges that she told Defendants about these problems but nothing was done to fix the problems, or Defendants unreasonably delayed in fixing the problems. Plaintiff further alleges that she was damaged as a result of the habitability issues.
Defendants filed this demurrer on July 10, 2023. In their demurrer, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to plead facts sufficient to maintain the Second and Sixth Causes of Action. Plaintiff opposes.
II. ANALYSIS
A. The Demurrer
As a general matter, in a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) “A demurrer tests the pleading alone, and not the evidence or facts alleged.” (E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants, Inc. Servs. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1315.) As such, the court assumes the truth of the complaint’s properly pleaded or implied factual allegations. (Id.) The only issue a demurrer is concerned with is whether the complaint, as it stands, states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)
Where a demurrer is sustained, leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) The burden is on the plaintiff to show the court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Id.; Lewis v. YouTube, LLC (2015) 244 Cal.App.4th 118, 226.) However, “[i]f there is any reasonable possibility that the plaintiff can state a good cause of action, it is error to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend.” (Youngman v. Nevada Irrigation Dist. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 240, 245).
1. Second Cause of Action for Tortious Breach of the Warranty of Habitability
Defendants demur to Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action on the basis that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendants.
In a pleading containing a habitability claim, the following must be alleged: (1) uninhabitable conditions; (2) actual or constructive knowledge of the conditions; and (3) damages. (Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 903, 918.)
Defendants’ demurrer confusingly argues that there is nothing alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint regarding uninhabitable conditions. However, Paragraph 99 of Plaintiff’s complaint under the heading for the Second Cause of Action very clearly mentions the issues affecting habitability, including cockroach infestation, mold contamination, ceiling collapse, dysfunctional plumbing systems, dysfunctional electrical systems, lack of heating and air conditioning, improper weatherproofing, termite infestation, deficient fire protection systems, dampness of habitable rooms, extensive water damage, and general deterioration. Paragraphs 23, 26-36, and 62-77 of the complaint also describe in more detail the conditions affecting habitability.
Plaintiff’s complaint also alleges that Defendant’s had actual or constructive notice of the habitability issues (Paragraph 101) and that Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of the conditions (Paragraph 104-105). Plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to maintain a cause of action for breach of warranty of habitability.
Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action is OVERRULED.
2. Sixth Cause of Action for Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment
Defendants demur to Plaintiff’s Sixth Cause of Action on the basis that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendants.
Cal. Civ. Code § 1927 states that “an agreement to let upon hire binds the letter secure to the hirer the quiet possession of the thing hired during the term of the hiring, against all persons lawfully claiming the same.” This partially codifies the right to quiet enjoyment. To be actionable, an act or omission affecting the quiet enjoyment must substantially interfere with the tenant’s rights to use and enjoyment of the property. (See Andrews v. Mobile Aire Estates (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 578, 589.)
Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendants have breached the covenant of quiet enjoyment by failing to remedy the alleged habitability violations and maintain the property in a habitable condition (Paragraph 142). Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that as a result, Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendants’ failure to repair the problems (Paragraphs 144-145).
The habitability violations that Plaintiff has alleged (cockroaches, mold, collapsed ceiling, lack of heating and air conditioning, etc.) would amount to substantial interference with Plaintiff’s quiet enjoyment of the property for purposes of demurrer. Plaintiff has pled facts sufficient to maintain this cause of action.
Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiff’s Sixth Cause of Action is OVERRULED.
B. Motion to Strike
Defendants have moved for the Court to strike Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages from Plaintiff’s complaint. However, as Plaintiff points out in her opposition, Defendants have failed to comply with Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1322 because Defendants’ notice of motion failed to quote the portion of the complaint which Defendants wish to strike.
Rule 3.1322(a) states that “A notice of motion to strike a portion of a pleading must quote in full the portions sought to be stricken except where the motion is to strike an entire paragraph, cause of action, count, or defense. Specifications in a notice must be numbered consecutively.”
While Defendant’s motion vaguely mentions Paragraph 86 at one point in the motion and Paragraph 96 in another part of the motion, Defendants’ notice of motion clearly does not comply with Rule 3.1322 because it does not include any indication of which specific paragraphs or portions of the complaint should be stricken.
Defendants’ motion to strike is DENIED for failure to comply with Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1322.
III. ORDER
1. Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiff’s Second and Sixth Causes of Action is OVERRULED.
2. Defendants’ motion to strike is DENIED.
3. Defendants shall file an Answer within 15 days.