Judge Gail Killefer, Case 22STCV06086 2022-08-25 Tentative Ruling

OPPOSING PARTY: Plaintiffs, Arezou Kamandi, Aliakbar Fayazi, by and through his guardian, Arezou Kamandi

REPLY: None as of August 23, 2022

TENTATIVE: Moving Defendant’s motion is granted. Plaintiff is granted 30 days leave to amend. Moving Defendant is to give notice.

This is a habitability and landlord/tenant action arising out of the residency of Arezou Kamandi and Aliakbar Fayazi, by and through his guardian Arezou Kamandi (“Plaintiffs”), at 20749 Parthenia Street, Winnetka, California (the “Property”). Bahram Shahriarian (“Defendant”) was allegedly the owner of the Property. Plaintiffs allege they became tenants of the guesthouse apartment on the Property on July 23, 2019. Plaintiffs allege the apartment was not developed as a living space with the correct permits and constituted a health and safety hazard to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs further allege the Property was uninhabitable due to bug infestation, water leaks, defective plumbing, lack of heat, broken appliances, etc. Plaintiffs allegedly complained to Defendant about the issues on numerous occasions, but Defendant allegedly failed to remedy the issues. Plaintiffs allege they abandoned their apartment at the Property on December 15, 2021.

Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability; (3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (4) Nuisance; (5) Negligence; (6) Negligent Misrepresentation; (7) Wrongful Eviction; (8) Violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 1940.2; and (9) Violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 789.3.

Defendant now moves to strike punitive damages from the Complaint. Plaintiffs oppose the motion.

Pursuant to CCP § 436, “the court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (b) Strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.” The grounds for a motion to strike must “appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.” (CCP § 437.)

Motions to strike are used to challenge defects in the pleadings not subject to demurrer. (Ferraro v. Camarlinghi (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 509, 529 [recognizing that an objection that the complaint failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action is ground for a general demurrer, not a motion to strike.].) Any party may move to strike the whole or any part of a pleading within the time allotted to respond to the pleading. (CCP § 435(b)(1).) The allegations of a complaint “must be liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice between the parties.” (CCP § 452.) The court “read[s] allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume[s] their truth.” (Clauson v. Sup. Ct. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255 (Clauson).)

Plaintiff may recover damages “in an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract” if Plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that Defendant acted with malice, oppression, or fraud. (Civ. Code, § 3294(a).) “Malice means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.” (Civ. Code 3294(c)(1).) “Oppression’ means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights.” (Civ. Code, § 3294(c)(2).) “Fraud means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.” (Civ. Code, § 3294(c)(3).) A plaintiff’s “conclusory characterization of defendant’s conduct as intentional, willful and fraudulent is a patently insufficient statement of ‘oppression, fraud, or malice, express or implied, within the meaning of section 3294.” (Brousseau v. Jarrett (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 864.)

Defendant contends that punitive damages must be stricken from the Complaint because the Complaint does not sufficiently plead that Defendant acted with malice, oppression, or fraud to sustain a claim for punitive damages. (Motion, 4-6.) “Plaintiff merely alleges legal conclusions” and “has not alleged any facts that together allege that [Defendant] engaged in despicable conduct.” (Motion, 6.)

“The allegations contained in Plaintiff's Complaint, measured against the law applying to the recovery of punitive damages, demonstrate that Plaintiff has not supported the subject pleading with facts sufficient to show, by the clear and convincing standard of Civil Code § 3294(a), that Mr. Shahriarian acted maliciously. Plaintiff also lacks allegations to demonstrate that Mr. Shahriarian subjected them to oppression as defined in Civil Code § 3294(c).” (Motion, 7-8.)

In opposition, Plaintiffs assert that punitive damages are warranted based on the alleged facts as it shows Defendant acted with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others. (Opp., 4-6.) “Plaintiffs have alleged facts that show that Defendant knew of the substandard conditions and the potential health dangers to Plaintiffs since moving into the Subject Property... By refusing to make the requested repairs at the Subject Property, Defendant 26 made the conscious decision to place Plaintiffs' health and safety at risk.” (Opp., 5.)

Here, the Complaint alleges that Defendant’s “actions were oppressive and malicious within the meaning of Civil Code section 3294 in that they subjected plaintiffs to cruel and unusual hardship in willful and conscious disregard of plaintiffs’ rights thereby entitling plaintiffs to an award of punitive damages.” (Complaint ¶ 93.)

The court agrees with Defendant that the Complaint is insufficiently pled to support a claim for punitive damages. As discussed above, the Complaint makes the conclusory allegation that all Defendant acted with malice, fraud, or oppression. The Complaint does not, however, specifically allege what actions Defendant engaged in which constitute malicious or willful conduct, and ratified conduct which could be deemed as a conscious disregard to the rights of plaintiffs, as the Complaint only alleges in a conclusory fashion that Defendant engaged in wrongful conduct in reference to the entire set of alleged facts. Such allegations are insufficient to support a claim for punitive damages against Defendant.

Defendant’s motion is granted. Plaintiffs are granted 30 days leave to amend. Defendant is to give notice.

[1] Defendant submit the declaration of their counsel, Hamid Soleimanian (“Soleimanian”) to demonstrate that they have fulfilled their statutory meet and confer obligations prior to filing the instant motion. Soleimanian attests that on July 25, 2022, counsel sent Plaintiff’s counsel a meet and confer letter raising the issues in this motion. (Soleimanian ¶2.) Counsel further attests Plaintiff’s counsel has not responded to the letter. (Soleimanian ¶3.) The Soleimanian Declaration is insufficient for purposes of CCP § 435.5, as the declaration does not show the parties to have met and conferred about the issues before bringing this motion. However, as failure to meet and confer is not grounds for denying this motion, the court continues to the merits of the papers.