Judge Gail Killefer, Case Number: 23STCV20474, Date: 2024-01-19 Tentative Ruling

OPPOSING PARTY: Plaintiffs Soledad Carranza; Luis Irving Flores; Angelo Steve Canseco; Michelle Andrea Carrillo; Tiffeny Vanessa Carrillo a minor by and through their Guardian Ad Litem, Soledad Carranza; and Kendra Jaden Carrillo a minor by and through their Guardian Ad Litem, Soledad Carranza

TENTATIVE: Defendant’s motion to strike is granted. Plaintiff is granted 10 days leave to amend. The Court continues the Case Management Conference to February 23, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. and sets a Non-Appearance OSC Re: Amended Complaint for the same date and time. Defendant to give notice.

On August 25, 2023, Soledad Carranza; Luis Irving Flores; Angelo Steve Canseco; Michelle Andrea Carrillo; Tiffany Vanessa Carrillo a minor by and through their Guardian Ad Litem, Soledad Carranza; and Kendra Jaden Carrillo a minor by and through their Guardian Ad Litem, Soledad Carranza (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint against Laurel Tower Apartment Complex, LLC (“Defendant”) and Does 1 to 100.

The operative Complaint alleges causes of action for (1) Violation of Civ. Code § 1942.4; (2) Tortious Breach of the Warranty of Habitability; (3) Private Nuisance; (4) Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.; and (5) Negligence.

On November 26, 2023, Defendant filed a motion to strike Plaintiff’s Complaint. Plaintiff opposes the Motion. The matter is now before the court.

Motion to Strike[1]

Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof. (CCP § 435(b)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1322(b).) The court may, upon a motion or at any time in its discretion and upon terms it deems proper: (1) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of the court. (CCP § 436(a)-(b); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782 [“Matter in a pleading which is not essential to the claim is surplusage; probative facts are surplusage and may be stricken out or disregarded”].)¿¿¿

“Where the defect raised by a motion to strike or by demurrer is reasonably capable of cure, leave to amend is routinely and liberally granted to give the plaintiff a chance to cure the defect in question.” (CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1146.) The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.)¿¿

Defendant moves to strike Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages on the basis that the Complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to support a request for punitive damages.

To state a claim for punitive damages under Civ. Code § 3294, a plaintiff must allege specific facts showing that the defendant has been guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud. (Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal. App. 4th 1033, 1042.)¿ The basis for punitive damages must be pled with specificity; conclusory allegations devoid of any factual assertions are insufficient. (Id.)¿¿When the defendant is a¿corporation, “the oppression, fraud, or malice must be perpetrated, authorized, or knowingly ratified by an officer, director, or managing agent of the¿corporation.” (Wilson v. Southern California Edison Company (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 123, 164; see Civ. Code, § 3294(b).)¿

“Malice” is defined in Civ. Code § 3294 (c)(1) as “conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury” or “despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.” “Oppression” is defined as “despicable conduct subjecting a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.” (Civ. Code § 3294(c)(2).) The term “despicable” has been defined in the case law as actions that are “base,” “vile,” or “contemptible.” (Shade Foods, Inc. v. Innovative Products Sales & Marketing, Inc. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 847, 891.) 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).)

As Defendant is a corporation, Plaintiff failed to allege specific facts to show that an officer, director, or managing agent knew, authorized, or ratified the wrongful conduct. Plaintiff does not state what conduct “Edwin Rosales, Mr. Lan (first name unknown), Tony (last name unknown), Maria Covia, Juan Martinez, and Hy Ly” engaged in that constituted a conscious disregard for the rights and/or safety of Plaintiffs and that these individuals were an officer, director, or managing agent of Defendant or that an officer, director, or managing agent of Defendant authorized or ratified said conduct. The Complaint also does not allege that the violations, citations, and orders to abate were sent to Defendant’s legal address such that an officer, director, or managing agent had advanced knowledge of the habitability issues but chose to disregard said issues to the detriment of Plaintiffs.

Therefore, Defendant’s request to strike punitive damages from Plaintiff’s Complaint is granted with leave to amend.

Defendant’s motion to strike is granted. Plaintiff is granted 10 days leave to amend. The Court

continues the Case Management Conference to February 23, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. and sets a Non-

Appearance OSC Re: Amended Complaint for the same date and time. Defendant to give notice.

[1] Pursuant to CCP § 435.5, the meet and confer requirement has been met. (Zvonicek Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. 1.)