Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 22STCV02571, Date: 2022-12-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV02571    Hearing Date: December 14, 2022    Dept: 26

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 26

Background

            On January 21, 2022, Plaintiffs Yolanda Sujey Pina Ramirez; Yonathan Efrain Rodriguez Pina, a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem, Yolanda Sujey Pina Ramirez; Jacqueline Rodriguez Pina, a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem, Yolanda Sujey Pina Ramirez; Jose Guadalupe Rodriguez Mederos; Lupita Rodriguez-Pina; Sujey Rodriguez Pina; Saul Alexander Lopez Morales; Ingrid Jeanneth Luna Ramirez; Jerry Estuardo Lopez Luna, a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem, Ingrid Jeanneth Luna Ramirez; and Alexis Yahir Lopez Luna, a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem, Ingrid Jeanneth Luna Ramirez (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed the instant breach of habitability action against Defendant Lorena Gamboa (“Defendant”).

            On November 16, 2022, Defendant filed the instant motion to strike portions of the complaint.  On November 30, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an opposition.  No reply has been filed. 

Allegations of the Operative Complaint

            The complaint alleges that:

            Plaintiffs each suffered “. . . uninhabitable, substandard housing conditions in the building and within their rental unit, including structural deficiencies, defective plumbing, flooring and weather proofing, and infestations.”  (Complaint ¶¶ 3-4.) 

            “Each Plaintiff resided as a tenant in an apartment at The Subject Property during the period in which Defendants owned, managed and exercised possession and control of the premises. During their tenancies, Plaintiffs were and are exposed to the following substandard conditions, which also exist or existed all throughout the Subject Property: [¶] a. Cockroach and bed bug infestation; [¶] b. inoperable windows; [¶] c. inoperable and/or malfunctioning household appliances; [¶] d. deteriorated and worn walls and ceilings; e. faulty and leaking pipes; [¶] f. lack of/faulty proper electrical wiring; [¶] g. unsanitary and unsafe common areas; and [¶] h. inadequate security.”  (Id. ¶ 17.) 

            “Each adult Plaintiff notified the Defendants and their agents about the habitability violations but Defendants have failed to correct the habitability conditions.”  (Id. ¶ 21.)  “The Defendants have been cited repeatedly for the same conditions at the Subject Property for more than eight years. In fact, the Health Department ordered Defendants to abate the infestations of cockroaches in every unit on August 26, 2014. Thereafter, the Health Department specifically ordered Defendants to abate the infestation of cockroaches and other vermin at the Subject Property on June 22, 2016, May 25, 2017, December 26,2018, July 25, 2019, July 30,2019, October 30, 2020, December 16,2020, February 16, 2021 , February 25, 2021 , and March 18, 2021. In spite of numerous Notices and Orders to Comply from government entities, Defendants have failed to correct the cited deficiencies throughout the Subject Property. Instead of taking corrective actions, Defendants have attempted to circumvent the consequences of the Housing Department's and Health Department's enforcement procedures by retaliating against Plaintiffs, harassing the Plaintiffs by abusing the right of entry into their units, and/or entering Plaintiffs' units repeatedly and for prolonged periods of time without making any repairs.”  (Id. ¶ 22.)

Legal Standard

Motions to strike are used to reach defects or objections to pleadings that are not challengeable by demurrer (i.e., words, phrases, prayer for damages, etc.).  (See CCP §§ 435-437.)  A party may file a motion to strike in whole or in part within the time allowed to respond to a pleading, however, if a party serves and files a motion to strike without demurring to the complaint, the time to answer is extended.  (CCP §§ 435(b)(1), 435(c).)

A motion to strike lies only where the pleading has irrelevant, false, or improper matter, or has not been drawn or filed in conformity with laws.  (CCP § 436.)  The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleadings or by way of judicial notice.  (CCP § 437.)

Meet and Confer Requirement

Code of Civil Procedure section 435.5, subdivision (a) requires that “[b]efore filing a motion to strike pursuant to this chapter, the moving party shall meet and confer¿in person or by telephone¿with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion to strike for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the motion to strike.” The parties are to meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due and if they are unable to meet the demurring party shall be granted an automatic 30-day extension.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 435.5(a)(2).)  The moving party must also file and serve a declaration detailing the meet and confer efforts.  (Id.¿at (a)(3).)¿ If an amended pleading is filed, the parties must meet and confer again before a motion to strike may be filed to the amended pleading.  (Id.¿at (a).) 

Here, no declaration has been submitted showing that Defendant even attempted to meet and confer with regard to the instant motion to strike.  While the meet and confer requirement is mandatory, “[a] determination by the court that the meet and confer process was insufficient shall not be grounds to grant or deny the motion to strike.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 435.5(a)(4).)  Therefore, the Court will turn to the merits of the motion.  However, any future failure to meet and confer for a motion that requires a meet and confer effort will result in the motion being taken off calendar. 

Discussion

            Defendant seeks to strike the prayer for punitive damages from the complaint.  Defendant contends that Plaintiffs fail to sufficiently allege fraud.

California Civil Code section 3294 authorizes the recovery of punitive damages in non-contract cases where “the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice . . . .” (Civ. Code, § 3294(a).) “‘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.” (Id. at (c)(1).) “‘Oppression’ means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.” (Id. at (c)(2).) “‘Fraud’ means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.” (Id. at (c)(3).) Punitive damages thus require more than the mere commission of a tort. (See Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 894-895.)

Moreover, a demand for punitive damages for the commission of any tort requires more than the mere conclusory allegations of “oppression, fraud, and malice.”  (Civ. Code § 3294; see Perkins v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal. App.3d 1, 6-7.)  Rather, “[t]here must be circumstances of aggravation or outrage, such as spite or malice, or a fraudulent or evil motive on the part of Defendant, or such a conscious and deliberate disregard of the interest of others that its conduct may be called willful or wanton.” (Taylor, supra, 24 Cal.3d at pp.894-895, [italics added].)

The complaint alleges in relevant part that Defendant has been aware of the infestation of coach roaches and other vermin since 2014 due to complaints from Plaintiffs and the Health Department.  (Complaint ¶¶ 21, 22.)  Instead of taking corrective actions, Defendant has “harass[ed] the Plaintiffs by abusing the right of entry into their units, and/or entering Plaintiffs' units repeatedly and for prolonged periods of time without making any repairs.”  (Id. ¶ 22.)  Defendant did so to “forc[e] Plaintiffs to abandon their legal recourses by vacating their rent controlled apartments and/or accepting substandard premises without further complaints.”

These allegations are sufficient to state a prayer for punitive damages.  While “mere negligence, which—even if gross, or reckless—cannot justify punitive damages[,]” (Krusi v. Bear, Stearns & Co. (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 664, 679), the allegations here amount to more than just mere negligence.  These added allegations – if proven true – would show that Defendant had been aware of the various hazardous infestations plaguing Plaintiffs for years but failed to take any action.  Coupled with the allegations that the Defendant was the owner, manager, and/or controller of the rented property since June 23, 2011, (Complaint ¶ 6), this is sufficient to allege that Defendant not only knew about the hazardous harm to Plaintiffs for years but willfully failed to take any action to remedy such harm.  This sufficiently alleges a conscious disregard of Plaintiffs harm for up to four years that if true would support a prayer for punitive damages.  (Penner v. Falk (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 858, 867 [“The pleadings also set out that respondents knew of [harmful] conditions for up to two years, had power to make changes, but failed to take corrective and curative measures. If proven, these allegations would support an award of punitive damages.”].)  Further, these allegations are more than mere conclusory allegations of “oppression, fraud, and malice[,]” (Perkins, supra, 117 Cal. App.3d at pp.6-7), as clear specific facts to support the prayer have been alleged.
            Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to strike the prayer for punitive damages is DENIED.

Conclusion and ORDER

            Based on the foregoing, Defendant Lorena Gamboa’s motion to strike the prayer for punitive damages in the complaint is DENIED.

            Defendant is to file an answer within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

            Moving Party is to provide notice of this order and file proof of service of such.

DATED: December 14, 2022                                                 ___________________________

                                                                                    Elaine Lu

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court