Judge Elaine W. Mandel, Case Number: 24SMCV02858, Date: 2025-01-23 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 24SMCV02858, Date: 2025-01-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV02858 Hearing Date: January 23, 2025 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Refoua v. Allen, Case no. 24SMCV02858

Hearing date January 23, 2025

Defendant Howard Management Group’s Motion to Strike Punitive Damages

Plaintiff Caroline Refua individually and ad litem for minor plaintiffs sues defendants Bruce Allen, Yoko Allen and Howard Management Group (“HMG”) for breach of contract, nuisance and habitability claims arising from defendants’ alleged failure to make repairs to plaintiffs’ rented property. Defendant HMG individually moves to strike plaintiffs’ prayers for punitive damages. Plaintiffs oppose the motion and request judicial notice.

Plaintiffs request judicial notice of HMG’s articles of incorporation filed with the Cal. Sec. of State 2/5/98. Cal. Evid. Code §452(c) permits judicial notice of official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the United States and of any state thereof. GRANTED.

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. G.D. Searle & Company 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. Recklessness or negligence are insufficient to support an award of punitive damage. Dawes v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 82, 88. 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.

HMG argues plaintiffs fail to plead specific facts giving rise to punitive damages. HMG argues plaintiffs failed to allege HMG was required to make repairs to the property despite defendant landlords’ lack of authorization. HMG also argues it is a corporate defendant, so under Cal. Civ. Code §3294, plaintiffs must specifically allege which employees committed the wrongs.

Plaintiffs argue they have made at least 26 specific allegations that would allow for punitive damages. These allegations include “plaintiffs… requested a mold test in writing to defendant HMG’s Maintenance Coordinator Jorge Leal;” (FAC para. 22) “despite the results from… mold inspection and the LACDPH citation… HMG stated that defendants needed more testing;” (FAC para. 40) and “HMG’s President Sloan told plaintiffs that if the issues at the premises were so immense then plaintiffs should have simply quit their tenancy sooner.” FAC para. 49. These allegations identify employees at HMG who were allegedly negligent in their inaction or who ratified that inaction.

These allegations, however, do not demonstrate that any employee of HMG acted with oppression, fraud or malice. Further, plaintiffs fail to offer allegations evidencing ratification by any managers or executives; plaintiffs at most offer allegations demonstrating HMG’s president was aware of the habitability issues one month before plaintiffs vacated the premises. This is insufficient.

HMG argues plaintiffs’ allegations of inaction sound in negligence and therefore fail to satisfy Dawes, supra. Plaintiffs argue they have alleged facts demonstrating oppression per Cal. Civ. Code §3294 via despicable conduct. “Despicable conduct” is conduct that is “so vile, base, contemptible, wretched or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people.” King v. U.S. Bank National Assoc. (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 728, 711. Plaintiffs argue HMG’s failure to make repairs exposed plaintiffs to harm and therefore

constituted despicable conduct. This is unavailing; plaintiffs alleged defendant landlords did not authorize the repairs to the property. FAC paras. 37, 38, 55. Plaintiffs do not allege HMG was authorized to make repairs absent defendant landlords’ consent. Absent a showing that HMG was both required and able to act, plaintiffs cannot establish that HMG acted with conscious disregard for plaintiffs’ rights.

HMG moves to strike paras. 86, 101, 110, 125 and 133 as well as prayers for punitive damages under the third, fourth, fifth and eighth COAs. The motion is GRANTED as to HMG only.