Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 20STCV12200, Date: 2023-09-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV12200 Hearing Date: September 29, 2023 Dept: P
Tentative Ruling
Tarpinian et. al. v.
Barrington Pacific, LLC et al., Case No. 20STCV12200
Shadpour v.
Barrington Pacific, LLC, Case No. 20SMCV00370
Hearing Date September
29, 2023
Barrington’s Demurrer/Motion
to Strike Portions of Third Amended Complaint-Shadpour
Barrington’s Demurrer/Motion
to Strike Portions of Fifth Amended Complaint-Tarpinian
These cases arise out
of a fire at apartment buildings, owned by defendant Douglas Emmett and managed
by defendants Barrington Plaza and Douglas Emmett Management. Resident
plaintiffs allege defendants failed to provide adequate fire safety precautions,
resulting in a fire that displaced, injured, and in one case killed, tenant
plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also the building remained suffused with ash and toxic
debris after the fire.
Defendants
Barrington Pacific, Douglas Emmett Management and Douglas Emmett (collectively
“Barrington”) demur to portions of Shadpour’s third amended complaint (TAC) and
portions of Tarpinian’s fifth amended complaint (FAC) and move to strike
portions of both. As the arguments largely overlap, the court will analyze them
together.
Demurrers
Constructive
Eviction/Quiet Enjoyment
A demurrer may be
sustained as to a cause of action that adds nothing to the pleading by way of
fact or law, but merely duplicates another claim. E.g., Palm Springs
Villas II Homeowners Ass’n., Inc. v. Parth (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 268, 271.
Tarpinian
Barrington argues Tarpinian’s
constructive eviction claim is duplicative of the breach of the implied
covenant of quiet enjoyment claim. The FAC does not separately allege breach of
the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment or constructive eviction. FAC, pg. 1. Since
the FAC does not contain a cause of action for constructive eviction, there is
no duplicative pleading. OVERRULED.
Shadpour
Barrington argues
Shadpour’s constructive eviction claim is duplicative of his claim for breach
of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment because both are based on allegations
that Shadpour was forced to vacate due to defendants’ failure to maintain the
property. These claims allege different injuries. The quiet enjoyment claim
alleges conditions which deprived Shadpour of the “full use and enjoyment of
his rental unit[,]” while he inhabited it; the constructive eviction claim
alleges plaintiff was “left with no recourse but to leave,” as a result of
defendants’ failure to cure defective conditions. TAC at ¶¶94, 122. The first
claim is based on damages while Shadpour lived in the unit; the second is based
on damages based on Shadpour’s being forced to vacate. While the claims arise
from the same underlying conduct, they seek damages for two distinct injuries,
so are sufficiently different to survive demurrer. OVERRULED.
Breach of the
Covenant of Good faith and Fair Dealing
A cause of action
for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is subject to
demurrer if it relies on the same alleged acts and damages as companion claim
for breach of contract. E.g., Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business
Credit, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1371.
Tarpinian
Barrington argues
the claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is
duplicative of the breach of contract claim. The breach of contract claim is
based on allegations that Barrington violated the lease’s guarantee of a
percentage-based reduction in the rent for reduced access to amenities; the
breach of implied covenant claim is based on allegations Barrington failed to provide
expected safety amenities or the level of tenant service advertised on Douglas Emmett’s
website. FAC at ¶138, 153. Since the claims allege distinct wrongdoing and
distinct injuries, they are not duplicative.
Barrington argues
the implied covenant claim fails because only insurance companies can be sued
for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. All
contracts, not just insurance contracts, contain a covenant of good faith and
fair dealing. See, e.g., Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (1988) 47
Cal.3d 654, 683-684. The cases Barrington cites stand for the proposition that
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing gives rise to a tort
claim in the insurance context. In other contexts, such as here, breaches
of the implied covenant lie in contract rather than tort. No “special
relationship” between the parties is required.
The cause of
action for breach of the implied covenant is “embedded” within the breach of
contract cause of action, without a separate heading. While this is true,
courts must focus on substance over form when evaluating pleadings on demurrer.
Although the breach of covenant cause of action is not pleaded separately, it
is adequately pleaded. OVERRULED.
Shadpour
The demurrer to
the breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim is based on
essentially the same arguments as in Tarpinian and fails for the same
reasons.
Warranty of
Habitability (Shadpour only)
Barrington argues
Shadpour failed to comply with the court’s June 27, 2022 minute order
instructing him to split his quiet enjoyment, breach of contract and
habitability claims into separate causes of action. The demurrer argues the
warranty of habitability claim remains “embedded” in paragraphs 95 and 122 of
the TAC, without a separate cause of action for breach of the warranty of
habitability.
This is not a
valid basis for demurrer, since it does not identify a specific cause of action
that is inadequately pleaded, instead seeking to excise certain paragraphs. The
court will address the TAC’s references to the warranty of habitability in its
analysis of Barrington’s motion to strike portions of the Shadpour TAC.
Motions to Strike
In Tarpinian,
Barrington argues its motion to strike contains “no new arguments,” and “simply
adopts the arguments raised in the Demurrer and incorporates them as if set
forth in this motion.” Because the demurrer was overruled, the motion to strike
is DENIED as to Tarpinian.
In Shadpour,
Barrington argues the TAC contains no separate cause of action for breach of
the implied warranty of habitability, contrary to the court’s prior order
requiring Shadpour to separately allege any claim for breach of the implied
warranty of habitability. Since the TAC contains no cause of action for breach
of the implied warranty, the reference to the warranty in paragraph 95 of the
TAC will be stricken.
Barrington also
seeks to strike Paragraph 122, which references “habitability issues.” A
general reference to “habitability issues” is not the same as a specific reference
to an unpleaded cause of action for breach of the implied warranty of
habitability. Paragraph 122 will not be stricken. GRANTED in part as to
Shadpour.