Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 21STCV42035, Date: 2022-10-19 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV42035 Hearing Date: October 19, 2022 Dept: P
Tentative
Ruling
Parodi,
et al. v. Wollman et al., Case No. 21STCV42035
Hearing
date October 19, 2022
Defendants’
Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint and Motion for Sanctions
Plaintiffs
allege defendants, their neighbors, painted the exterior of their house
“several bright colors,” causing sunlight to reflect into plaintiffs’ residence
“with a bright purple hue.” Plaintiffs sue for private nuisance, negligence and
intentional infliction of emotional distress. A prior demurrer was sustained
with leave to amend; defendants demur to the SAC and move for sanctions
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 128.7.
Demurrer
The elements of
private nuisance are (1) interference with use and enjoyment of property,
(2) the invasion must be substantial such that actual damages occur, and (3)
the interference must be unreasonable. Wilson v. Southern California Edison
Co. (2018) 21 Cal. App. 5th 786, 802-803. A
cause of action for private nuisance requires plaintiff to show “substantial
actual damage” is based an objective standard that considers the “effect . . .
the invasion [would] have on persons of normal health and sensibilities living
in the same community[.]” Absent a private covenant or relevant statute, a
landowner has no natural right to air, light or an unobstructed view. A
nuisance claim based entirely on an alleged obstruction is subject to demurrer.
Pacifica Homeowners’ Ass’n. v. Wesley Palms Retirement Community (1986)
178 Cal.App.3d
1147, 1152.
As in the prior demurrer, defendants assert the
nuisance claim is based on interference with light. Relying on Pacifica,
supra, defendants contend plaintiffs do not have a right to unobstructed
light. Plaintiffs argue their amended nuisance claim is based on changes to the
interior of their home resulting from defendants’ painting the wall bright
purple, not obstruction or interference with light. See SAC ¶ 9.
Demurrer was sustained as to the FAC, since the court
found light coming into the home was insufficient to support a claim for
nuisance. See FAC ¶ 11; see also June 29, 2022 Minute Order at pg. 2. The
allegation remains that the purple wall is causing a purple hue to enter
plaintiffs’ home. Plaintiffs still fail to allege existence of a private
covenant or statute that guarantees them a right to unobstructed natural light.
Under Pacifica and related cases, the nuisance claim cannot proceed.
SUSTAINED without leave to amend.
Plaintiffs alleged personal injury damages in an
attempt to plead around the economic loss rule.
However, the negligence claim is derivative of the nuisance cause of
action. Under Pacifica, property owners do not have a right to unimpeded
light. Defendants’ alleged interference with the light breached no duty of
care, so cannot serve as the basis of a negligence claim. SUSTAINED without
leave to amend.
A cause of
action for intentional infliction of emotional distress requires plaintiff to
plead and prove outrageous conduct, defined as conduct “beyond all possible
bounds of decency and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a
civilized community.” Melorich Builders, Inc. v. Superior Court (1984)
160 Cal.App.3d 931, 936.
Defendants argue
again that plaintiffs have not alleged extreme and outrageous conduct. The SAC
alleges defendants’ conduct was outrageous because defendants’ choice in paint
color resulted in a change to the interior of plaintiffs’ home. See SAC ¶ 33.
As previously ruled, this is not “outrageous.” See June 29, 2022 Minute Order.
Painting one’s own home bright colors (which may be displeasing to others) does
not violate “all possible bounds of decency” and cannot be regarded as
“atrocious and utterly intolerable[.]”
Plaintiffs
allege defendants refused to change the paint after being informed of the harm
plaintiffs were alleging, suggesting intentional conduct. See SAC ¶ 33. But
there are no allegations defendants’ choice of paint color was made with any
intent towards plaintiffs. Christensen v. Superior Court (1991) 54
Cal.3d 868, 905-906 (“[T]o justify recovery the action must be directed to the
plaintiff.” Refusal to correct a perceived defective condition is not “a
conscious, deliberate intent to injure the plaintiffs.” See, McDonell v. American Trust Co. (1955) 130 Cal.App.2d 296, 299. SUSTAINED
without leave to amend.
Motion
for Sanctions
Defendants move for sanctions, arguing the SAC is frivolous under Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §128.7(b)(d). To obtain sanctions, the asserted claim or argument must be objectively unreasonable, such that any reasonable attorney would agree it is totally and completely without merit. In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637, 650. While plaintiffs’ claims are not meritorious, and the court declines to grant another leave to amend, the claims were not objectively frivolous. DENIED.