Judge Elaine W. Mandel, Case Number: 24SMCV00604, Date: 2024-05-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 24SMCV00604, Date: 2024-05-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV00604 Hearing Date: May 28, 2024 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Elassi v. HMA Development, Inc., et al., Case No. 24SMCV00604

Hearing date May 28, 2024

Defendants HMA Development, Inc., Aizenman & Gellar’s Demurrer and Motion to Strike Punitive Damages

Plaintiff alleges that throughout his tenancy in an apartment owned by defendants, his unit has been plagued with water leaks, which caused mold infestations, resulting in illness. Plaintiff further alleges that despite repeatedly informing defendants of repairs needed, defendants failed to timely make such repairs. Plaintiff claims defendants initiated eviction proceedings in retaliation for his complaints.

Defendants demur to the fourth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress and move to strike punitive damages.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

“‘The elements of a prima facie case for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress were summarized in [citation], as follows: “(1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff’s suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant’s outrageous conduct.”’ [Citation.]” Flynn v. Higham (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 677, 681.

“Extreme and outrageous conduct is conduct that is ‘“so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community”’ [citation] and must be ‘“of a nature which is especially calculated to cause, and does cause, mental distress.”’ [Citation.] ‘“‘[I]t is for the court to determine, in the first instance, whether the defendant’s conduct may reasonably be regarded as so extreme and outrageous as to permit recovery.’”’ [Citation.]” Chang v. Lederman (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 67, 86–87.

Defendants argue there are no facts alleged to show defendants intended to cause or recklessly disregarded the probability of causing emotional distress, and plaintiff has not alleged facts to he suffered severe emotional distress.

The court disagrees. Plaintiff sufficiently alleged water leaks and mold infestations, of which he complained to defendants, and defendants failed and refused to fix them. Complaint ¶¶ 16, 17, 29 and 51. In addition, plaintiff alleges defendants initiated eviction proceedings against him in retaliation for his complaints of mold. Id. ¶ 34. These allegations, taken as true and viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, provide an adequate basis upon which a fact finder could conclude defendants’ conduct was in reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress. In addition, plaintiff alleges suffering severe emotional distress, a sufficient factual allegation. Id. ¶ 53. OVERRULED.

Motion to Strike Punitive Damages

Under California law, a landlord’s failure to repair can support a claim for punitive damages. Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 903, 920. In Stoiber, the Court held the tenant pled sufficient facts to support her prayer for exemplary damages because she alleged the landlord had actual knowledge of the defective conditions, including leaking sewage, deteriorated flooring, falling ceiling, leaking roof, broken windows, and other unsafe and dangerous conditions, and the landlord failed to repair them. Id.

As discussed, the facts alleged in the cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, detailed above, provide a sufficient basis to allege punitive damages. DENIED.