Judge Elaine W. Mandel, Case Number: 24SMCV01819, Date: 2024-09-05 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 24SMCV01819, Date: 2024-09-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV01819 Hearing Date: September 5, 2024 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Hamo v. Villa Cannon Homeowners Assoc., Case No. 24SMCV01819

Hearing Date: September 5, 2024

Defendant’s Demurrer to the Complaint and Motion to Strike

Plaintiff Hamo alleges defendant Villa Cannon Homeowners Association (“HOA”) defamed him by falsely claiming plaintiff sued the HOA. Defendant HOA demurrers to the entire complaint, arguing each cause of action fails to state a claim and is uncertain. HOA additionally moves to strike the prayer for punitive damages.

Uncertainty

A complaint is subject to demurrer for uncertainty if it fails “as a whole . . . to apprise the defendant of the basis on which the plaintiff is seeking relief.” E.g., Perkins v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 1, 6. “[D]emurrers for uncertainty are disfavored, and are granted only if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.” Lickiss v. Fin. Industry Regulatory Authority (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135. A demurrer for uncertainty does not address whether the pleading fails to “incorporate sufficient facts in the pleading but is directed at the uncertainty existing in the allegations actually made.” Butler v. Sequeira (1950) 100 Cal.App.2d 143, 145-146. Rather, a demurrer is intended to address whether a pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot understand the allegations made. Id. at p. 146.

The complaint is not incomprehensible, as it alleges Hamo was defamed by the HOA’s allegedly false statements. OVERRULED.

Defamation

The HOA contends the defamation cause of action fails because it does not allege a defamatory statement or injury due to the alleged defamatory statement.

“The elements of a defamation claim are (1) a publication that is (2) false, (3) defamatory, (4) unprivileged, and (5) has a natural tendency to injure or causes special damage. The defamatory statement must specifically refer to, or be of and concerning, the plaintiff.” John Doe 2 v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1300, 1312, quotation marks and citation omitted.

The complaint alleges the HOA defamed Hamo by emailing to its members false claims that Hamo had sued the HOA. It alleges publication via HOA emails and posted meeting agenda notices regarding “… Mr. Hamo’s Lawsuit.” Compl. ¶¶19-20. Hammo alleges these statements were false because he did not file a lawsuit, and so informed the HOA. Id. ¶20, 22.

Hamo alleges injury due to the defamatory statements, claiming these false statements tarnished his standing in the community, resulting in him being shunned and ostracized by the homeowners, who perceive him as a villain and enemy of the HOA. Id. ¶¶23, 27. Hamo further alleges he has been ignored when voicing concerns about the building. Id. ¶27. Based on these allegations, the complaint properly states a cause for action for defamation at the pleading stage. OVERRULED.

Negligence

Next the HOA asserts the negligence cause of action fails because Hamo does not allege the HOA owed him a duty. In opposition, Hamo argues the HOA owes him a fiduciary duty of care. Hamo is correct.

To state a negligence claim, plaintiff must allege (1) “the existence of a legal duty of care,” (2) “breach of that duty,” and (3) “proximate cause resulting in an injury.” McIntyre v. Colonies-Pacific, LLC (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 664, 671.

In a conclusory manner, the complaint alleges the HOA owed Hamo a duty of care as a member of the HOA to keep matters between it and Hamo confidential. Compl. ¶¶43-44. Though it is not specifically alleged, HOAs and their board members do owe fiduciary duties of care to members. The complaint alleges breach of that duty by publishing (and continuing to publish) the misinformation that plaintiff filed a lawsuit, when he had not. For purposes of notice pleading, this is sufficient. OVERRULED.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Finally, the HOA argues the IIED claim fails to allege outrageous conduct because the posting of the board meeting agenda in the common area does not meet the standard. The court agrees.

The elements of a prima facie case for intentional infliction of emotional distress are: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) plaintiff’s suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) causation. “Conduct to be outrageous must be so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community.” Wilson v. Hynek (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 999, 1009, citation and ellipses omitted.

The complaint alleges that after discovering the publication, Hamo contacted the HOA's representative to inform them there was no lawsuit and the notice of the scheduled meeting violated the terms of their CC&Rs by providing only two days' notice. Compl. ¶20. Hamo claims he was uncomfortable with the publications, but nowhere does Hamo allege discomfort or vulnerability to emotional distress. SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

Motion to Strike Punitive Damages

Defendant moves to strike the request for punitive damages, arguing failure to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate that the HOA acted with malice, fraud or oppression.

Punitive damages may be recovered only upon a showing of malice, fraud or oppression. Civ. Code §3294(a). “Malice” is as conduct intended to cause injury to a person or despicable conduct carried on with a willful and conscious disregard for the rights or safety of others. Turman v. Turning Point of Cent. Cal., Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63. “Oppression” means despicable conduct subjecting a person to cruel and unjust hardship, in conscious disregard of the person’s rights. Id. “Fraud” is an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known by defendant, with intent to deprive a person of property, rights or otherwise cause injury. Id. Conclusory allegations, devoid of factual assertions, are insufficient. Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1042.

The complaint alleges that instead of correcting a false publication at plaintiff's request, defendants created a new publication falsely claiming plaintiff initiated legal action against the HOA and emailed this false statement to every HOA member. Compl. ¶52. Hamo alleges the HOA's repeated spreading of false and defamatory information establishes malice and caused anxiety and a feeling of not being welcome in his home community. Id. ¶31. The allegations presently are not sufficient to support punitive damages and are stricken. GRANTED.

Plaintiff is to file an amended complaint within 15 days and may amend to allege punitive damages.