Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 21STCV42035, Date: 2023-01-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV42035    Hearing Date: January 27, 2023    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Parodi et al. v. Wollman et al., Case No. 21STCV42035

Hearing Date January 27, 2023

Defendants’ Demurrer to Third Amended Complaint

Plaintiffs allege defendant neighbors painted their house “several bright colors,” causing sunlight to reflect off defendants’ home and into plaintiffs’ residence “with a bright purple hue.” On October 19, 2022 the court sustained a demurrer to all causes of action, granting leave to amend as to the nuisance cause of action. Plaintiffs’ third amended complaint contains a single cause of action for private nuisance. Defendants demur.

A cause of action for private nuisance requires plaintiff to show “substantial actual damage.” This is based an objective standard which considers “effect . . . the invasion [would] have on persons of normal health and sensibilities living in the same community[.]” Additionally, plaintiff must show the invasion is “unreasonable,” applying an objective standard derived from “whether reasonable persons generally, looking at the whole situation impartially and objectively, would consider it unreasonable.” San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 893, 939. Both elements are questions of fact that depend on the circumstances of each individual case. Id.

Absent a 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 such an alleged obstruction is subject to demurrer. Pacifica Homeowners’ Ass’n. v. Wesley Palms Retirement Community (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 1147, 1152. Absent malice, blockage of light to a neighbor’s property does not constitute actionable nuisance. Sher v. Leiderman (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 867, 875.

The court sustained the previous demurrer on the grounds that plaintiffs only alleged obstruction of light entering the home, which alone cannot support a cause of action for nuisance. The TAC alleges sunlight reflecting off defendants’ home fills plaintiffs’ house with a bright purple hue, causing pain and discomfort. TAC at ¶¶9-10.

Defendants argue the TAC alleges only that defendants’ house obstructs natural light from flowing into plaintiffs’ house. They cite Pacifica and this court’s prior demurrer rulings, arguing obstruction of light is insufficient to support a nuisance claim. Sher, however, makes clear that in the context of a nuisance claim, “obstruction” should be treated as synonymous with “blockage.” Plaintiffs do not allege defendants’ property blocks light from entering their property; rather, they argue it causes intrusion of offensive purple-hued light. Pacifica and Sher do not apply, because this is an alleged intrusion, not an alleged obstruction. Plaintiffs adequately pleaded an unreasonable interference with enjoyment of their property. The claim can proceed. OVERRULED. Defendants to answer within 15 days.