Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 24SMCV01986, Date: 2024-09-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24SMCV01986 Hearing Date: September 20, 2024 Dept: P
Tentative Ruling
Lane v. 9015 & 9025 Rangely LP, Case
No. 24SMCV01986
Hearing Date September 20, 2024
Defendants’ Motion to Strike Punitive
Damages
Plaintiff
tenant Lane sues defendant landlord/mangers 9015 & 9025 Rangely LP, Oakwood
Realty Corporation d/b/a Rosewood Management and 1016 Sandborn LLC alleging
negligence, premises liability, negligent hiring and retention and failure to
return security deposit arising out of an assault by a maintenance worker. Defendants
move to strike punitive damages allegations.
Defendant
owner/property managers hired Arriaza, a convicted felon, to perform
maintenance work. In the course of his employment, Arriaza was required to
enter the rental units and became familiar with their points of entry. Beginning
in 2021, defendants were made aware of various incidents of intruders gaining
access to the property through unsecured windows and gates.
Plaintiff
tenant moved into the proepry in April 2023 and in January 2024 requested a
metal door for her unit to increase security. Ten days after plaintiff’s
request, Arriaza broke into plaintiff’s unit and assaulted her. Arriaza previously
attempted to assault another tenant. Plaintiff alleges psychological and
economic harm. Plaintiff also alleges Arriaza was only able to commit the
assaults because defendants employed him, giving him access to and knowledge of
the property. Plaintiff further security lapses by defendants.
Punitive
damages are allowable only when plaintiff proves oppression, fraud or malice.
Cal. Civ. Code §3294(a). Facts giving rise to a claim for punitive damages must
be pleaded specifically; vague or conclusory allegations are insufficient. G.D.
Searle & Co. v. Superior Court (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 22, 29. Conclusory
requests for punitive damages without factual support are subject to a motion
to strike. E.g., Cyrus v. Haveson (1976) 65 Cal.App.3d 306,
316-317; Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 164. On a
motion to strike, allegations in a pleading must be treated as true. E.g.,
Clauson v. Sup. Ct. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.
Defendants
argue plaintiff fails to state facts sufficient to support a claim for punitive
damages under Code Civ. Proc. §3294. The complaint alleges:
·
Defendants
owned, managed, or operated the premises. Compl. at ¶5.
·
Defendants
caused or become aware of numerous security risks. Compl. at ¶14.
·
In
or around 2015 defendants removed the window bars on the kitchen-side windows
of plaintiff’s unit, and the window was unprotected during her tenancy. Compl.
at ¶15
·
On
or about September 19, 2021 an intruder gained access to one of the units by
entering through a previously closed window. Defendants received notice of the
break-in but did not take corrective action. Compl. at ¶16.
·
On
or about October 5, 2021 defendants received notice that an intruder entered the
complex and was peering through windows. Though tenants requested security
measures, defendants failed to take action. Compl. at ¶17.
·
In
October 2021 an intruder entered the garage, which defendants left vacant and
unlocked. The intruder attempted to access several units. Defendants received
notice but failed to secure the garage or install security measures to prevent
intruders from accessing units, and the intruder returned numerous times.
Compl. at ¶18.
·
On
October 13, 2021 an intruder accessed another tenant’s unit. Defendants
received notice and
failed to take corrective action. Compl. at ¶19.
·
On
May 4, 2023 an intruder entered the property via a faulty gate. Plaintiff
notified defendants, who did not take action to ensure the gate locked. Compl.
at ¶20.
The
complaint alleges the following regarding Arriaza:
·
Defendants
hired Arriaza to perform maintenance services. Compl. at ¶11.
·
Arriaza
entered tenants’ units to perform job duties, allowing him to become familiar
with access points, such as windows and doors. Compl. at ¶12.
·
Prior
to employment, Arriaza was incarcerated for felony grand theft, receiving
stolen property and making criminal threats and had an extensive criminal history.
Compl. at ¶13.
·
Arriaza’s
employment necessitated entry into tenants’ units and allowed him to gain
knowledge of the identity and appearance of the tenants. Compl.
at ¶69.
·
Given
his criminal history, Arriaza was unfit for his position. Compl. at ¶70.
·
As
a standard background check would have revealed Arriaza’s criminal history, defendants
knew, or should have known, Arriaza was unfit for his position. Compl. at ¶71.
·
Arriaza’s
knowledge of the property allowed him to identify and force entry into plaintiff’s
unit through an open window and commit criminal acts. Compl. at ¶72.
Defendants
argue punitive damages are not available for causes of action sounding in
simple negligence. Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890,
895-896. The first and third causes of action are based on negligence. The second
cause of action is for premises liability, which sounds in negligence and has similar
elements. See Kesner v. Superior Court (2016), 1 Cal.5th 1132,
1159.
If this
were merely a matter of simple negligence or ignorance, defendants would be
correct. However, in similar cases, requests for punitive damages survive in
landlord-tenant cases where landlords were alleged to be aware “of the probable
dangerous consequences of [their] conduct, and that [they] willfully and
deliberately failed to avoid those consequences.” Taylor, supra. Plaintiff
alleges defendants were aware of previous security incidents and dangerous
conditions, yet failed to take any corrective measures.
For
pleading purposes, these allegations must be treated as true. If proven, these
allegations could lead a reasonable factfinder to conclude defendants’ actions
constituted malice or an intent to injure. Furthermore, the claim for punitive
damages is supported by specific factual allegations regarding defendants’ employment
of Arriaza and alleged knowledge of his background. DENIED.