Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 22SMCV01716, Date: 2023-01-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV01716    Hearing Date: January 5, 2023    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Brandt v. Denali 1844 LCC et al., Case No. 22SMCV01716

Hearing Date January 5, 2023

Defendant Denali’s Motion to Strike Portions of Complaint

Plaintiff Brandt, a tenant at defendant Denali’s property from 1994 until 2020, alleges Denali failed to rectify substandard conditions and wrongfully evicted her in violation of Los Angeles County’s COVID-19 tenant protections and the City of Santa Monica’s eviction moratorium. Denali moves to strike Brandt’s requests for punitive damages and some statutory damages.

Punitive Damages

A request for punitive damages must be supported by clear, specific allegations of fraud, malice, or oppression. Hilliard v. A.H. Robbins Co. (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 374, 392. A properly pleaded cause of action for wrongful eviction is sufficient to support a prayer for punitive damages. Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 903.

Brandt seeks punitive damages in connection with her cause of action for wrongful eviction. That claim is based on allegations that Denali constructively evicted her by failing to repair substandard conditions at the unit. While Brandt argues that a properly pleaded cause of action for wrongful eviction can support a claim for punitive damages, the specificity requirements set forth in Hilliard applies. Brandt alleges uninhabitable conditions but does not describe those conditions. She does not allege she informed Denali of the conditions. The punitive damages allegations supporting the first cause of action merely state the statutory standard of fraud, malice, and/or oppression without specific factual allegations. This applies equally to Brandt’s other causes of action. GRANTED with ten days leave to amend.

Statutory Damages

Brandt seeks statutory penalties of $5,000 per violation in connection with her second, third and fourth causes of action. Denali argues Brandt has not adequately alleged she is over 62 years old and/or disabled, prerequisites for the statutory penalty. Denali argues the second and third causes of action are based on statutes and/or regulations enacted in 2021, before the wrongdoing alleged, and the new rules are not retroactive. Brandt argues the new statutes are similar to regulations in place at the time of the eviction. The court agrees with Brandt, and the retroactivity argument fails. As to Brandt’s disability, paragraph 21 of the complaint alleges she is disabled. The argument to strike the request for $5,000 per violation in statutory penalties also fails. DENIED.