Judge: Gail Killefer, Case: 22STCV26532, Date: 2023-02-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV26532    Hearing Date: February 21, 2023    Dept: 37

HEARING DATE:                 February 21, 2023    

CASE NUMBER:                  22STCV26532

CASE NAME:                        Deonta Dennis. v. Henry Boorstin, et al.

MOVING PARTIES:             Defendants Henry Boorstin and Brett Harris

OPPOSING PARTY:             Plaintiff Deonta Dennis

TRIAL DATE:                        None

PROOF OF SERVICE:          OK

MOTION:                               Defendant’s Motion to Strike Portions of Complaint

OPPOSITION:                       February 6, 2023

REPLY:                                  February 10, 2023

TENTATIVE:                         Defendants’ motion to strike is granted. Plaintiff is granted 20 days leave to amend from this date. Defendants are to provide notice.

Background

This action arises in connection with the Section 8 tenancy of Deonta Dennis (“Plaintiff”) at 668 E. 51st Street, Los Angeles, California (the “Residence”).  Defendants Henry Boorstin (“Boorstin”) and Brett Harris (“Harris”) are alleged to be co-owners, landlords, lessors, and property managers of the Residence. The Complaint alleges Plaintiff agreed to lease the Residence on October 3, 2017. The Complaint further alleges the Residence has several deficient and inhabitable conditions, which Boorstin has failed to correct or remedy.

Plaintiff’s operative Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract against Boorstin (2) landlord liability for retaliation, harassment and uninhabitable conditions against Boorstin, (3) trespass, (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (5) nuisance, and (6) violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. Plaintiffs pray for permanent injunctive relief, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and other damages according to law in connection with their Complaint.

Defendants now move to strike Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages from the Complaint. Plaintiff opposes the motion.

Meet and Confer Efforts

Effective January 1, 2018, a party filing a motion to strike must meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion and identify all of the specific allegations that it believes are subject to be stricken and identify with legal support the basis of the deficiencies.  (CCP § 435.5(a).) 

Defendants submit the declaration of their attorney, Tiffanie Q. Spivey (“Spivey”), to demonstrate that they have met their statutory meet and confer obligations prior to filing the instant motion. Spivey attests that on January 3, 2023, she sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff’s counsel raising the issues in this motion, and on January 12, 2023, telephonically spoke with Plaintiff’s counsel. (Spivey Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.) Spivey further attests that the parties were unable to reach an agreement. (Id.)

The Spivey Declaration is sufficient for the purposes of this motion. .

Analysis

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).)

A.     Punitive Damages

A Plaintiff making a claim for punitive damages must allege specific facts showing that a defendant engaged in acts that constitute malice, oppression or fraud. (CCP § 3294.) “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.)

Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages must be stricken because Plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate that Defendants acted with malice, fraud or oppression. (Motion, 7-8.) “The Complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to give rise to an inference of intentional conduct, despicable conduct, or the conscious disregard of the safety to others to support an award of punitive damages.” (Id.)

In opposition, Plaintiff points to the list of deficiencies pled in the Complaint, as well as the unlawful detainer actions filed against Plaintiff by Defendants as evidence of conduct meriting a punitive damages claim. (Opposition, 2-4.) However, Plaintiff fails to point to specific factual allegations which can show oppressive, despicable, and/or malicious conduct which was done with conscious disregard of Plaintiff.

Here, a review of the Complaint shows conclusory language alleged regarding Defendants’ intent, or with regards to an alleged recklessness in Defendants’ conduct. (Complaint ¶¶ 38, 72, 74, 76, 82, 84-90.) The Complaint contains no other allegations regarding how Defendants’ conduct was allegedly willful, oppressive, malicious, or despicable.

Given the foregoing, the court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiff’s punitive damages request and claims regarding oppressive, malicious, and/or fraudulent conduct must be stricken. As discussed above, Plaintiff has not alleged any specific facts regarding how Defendants allegedly engaged in such willful, malicious, and/or despicable conduct, other than statements to that effect.

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is granted.

CONCLUSION

Defendants’ motion to strike is granted. Plaintiff is granted 20 days leave to amend from this date. Defendants are to provide notice.