Judge: Gail Killefer, Case: 24STCV14533, Date: 2024-10-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV14533    Hearing Date: October 30, 2024    Dept: 37

HEARING DATE:                 Wednesday, October 30, 2024

CASE NUMBER:                   24STCV14533

CASE NAME:                        Leeana Smith v. Jesse Braham, et al.

MOVING PARTY:                 Defendants Jesse Braham and Iris Johnson

OPPOSING PARTY:             Plaintiff Leeanna Smith

TRIAL DATE:                        Not Set

PROOF OF SERVICE:           OK

PROCEEDING:                      Motion to Strike

OPPOSITION:                        10 October 2024

REPLY:                                  16 October 2024

TENTATIVE:                         Defendants’ motion to strike is granted with leave to amend as to Defendant Johnson and denied as to Defendant Braham. Plaintiff is granted 10 days leave to amend. The court sets the OSC RE: Filing of Amended Complaint for November 29, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. Moving party to give notice.

Background

On June 11, 2024, Leeanna Smith (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Jesse Braham a/k/a Jesse Braham Jr. a/k/a Jesse Graham a/k/a JC Graham (“Braham”); Iris Johnson a/k/a Yvette Johnson (“Johnson”) (collectively “Defendants”); and Does 1 to 10.

The Complaint alleges fifteen causes of action:

1)     Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability;

2)     Tortious Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability;

3)     Negligence;

4)     Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment;

5)     Private Nuisance;

6)     Violation of Civil Code, Section 1942.4;

7)     Retaliation – Civil Code § 1942.5;

8)     Failure to Comply with Tenant Habitability Program, LAMC § 152.00, et seq.;

9)     Violation of Civil Code Section 1940.2;

10) Violation of Civil Code Section 789.3;

11) Harassment in Violation of LAMC Section 45.33;

12) Excessive Collection of Rent – LAMC § 151.04 et seq.;

13) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress;

14) Violation of Business & Professions Code, Section 17200;

15) Violation of Cal. Civ. Code Section 1714 – Negligent Violation of Statutory Duty; and

16) Trespass.

On September 18, 2024, Defendants filed this Motion to strike punitive damages from the Complaint. Plaintiff opposes the Motion. The matter is now before the court.

LEGAL STANDARDS 

A.        Motion to Strike 

¿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); CRC, 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”].)¿¿¿¿ 

B.        Leave to Amend 

“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.)¿¿¿ 

motion to strike[1]

I.         Discussion

Defendants move to strike the Complaint’s request for punitive damages. (See Compl., ¶¶ 87:14-21; 94:18-25; 101:16-23; 146:10-17; 162:4-21; 181:7-9; 186:23-25; Prayer for Relief, Lines 10-11, 18.)

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. (Ibid.)¿¿“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). 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).)

Here, the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff was a tenant that moved into the Rental Unit located on a property in Los Angeles, CA (the “Property”) on or about April 5, 2023. (Compl., ¶ 20.) Defendant Braham is the owner of the Property, including the Rental Unit. (Id., ¶ 12.)

Defendant Johnson was the former owner of the Property, is an associate and agent of Defendant Braham, and assisted in the management of the Rental Unit. (Id., ¶¶ 12, 21.) Since the time Plaintiff moved into the Rental Unit, Defendant Braham began to harass Plaintiff by making unwelcome advances toward Plaintiff “including inviting her into his home and making promises to move Plaintiff to a larger unit.” (Id., ¶ 22.) The Complaint alleges the harassment intensified due to Plaintiff’s rebuffing these advances. (Ibid.) This included shouting at Plaintiff in front of her children on multiple occasions. (Id., ¶ 67.) Plaintiff received a Civil Harassment Restraining Order against Defendant Braham in July 2023. (Id., ¶ 68.)

Since April 13, 2023, the Rental Unit lacked heating and Defendant Braham attempted to bar Los Angeles Housing Department (“LAHD”) inspectors from accessing the Property for inspection. (Compl., ¶ 28.) Beginning on August 15, 2023, Defendant Braham shut off all power to the Rental Unit rendering it uninhabitable for about one month. (Id., ¶ 35.) When Plaintiff complained about the washer and dryer hookups being unusable according to the gas company, instead of fixing said issues, “on or about October 23, 2023, Defendant Braham threatened to remove Plaintiff and her children from their home if she did not get rid of the washing machine and dryer in three days.” (Id., ¶ 50.)

Defendant Braham tried to evict Plaintiff and her children in retaliation for Plaintiff making a  complaint to LAHD regarding the lack of heat and hot water. (Compl., ¶ 52.) “On or about April 12, 2023, only days after Plaintiff moved into the Rental Unit, Defendant Braham issued a 30-Day Notice to Vacate attempting to terminate Plaintiff’s tenancy.” (Id., ¶ 53.) Defendant Braham also filed an Unlawful Detainer action against Plaintiff (LASC Case No. 23STUD04269) seeking to recover possession of the Rental Unit despite Plaintiff not being in default of the payment of rent. (Id., ¶¶ 54-56.)

In April and May of 2023, Defendant Braham orally informed Plaintiff that he would not accept further rent payments and that Plaintiff had to vacate the unit within 60 days. (Compl., ¶¶ 58, 59.) “Yet, on or about August 7, 2023, Defendant Braham demanded that Plaintiff pay rent for May through August of 2023 within three days or get out.” (Id., ¶ 59.) “On or about September 16, 2023, Defendant Braham again demanded Plaintiff pay rent for June through August of 2023 within three days or face immediate eviction.” (Id., ¶ 61.)

In April 2023, Defendant Braham repeatedly misrepresented that Plaintiff must vacate the Rental Unit and that a sheriff would be coming any day to lock her and her children out of the home. (Compl., ¶ 64.) In May of 2023, Defendant Braham illegally locked Plaintiff out of the Rental Unity by changing the locks and telling Plaintiff she was trespassing. (Id., ¶ 65.) Defendant Braham also threatened to report Plaintiff to child protective services by falsely alleging Plaintiff left the children home alone. (Id., 70.) Defendant Braham’s conduct was intended to entice Plaintiff to vacate the unit and cause Plaintiff emotional distress. (Id., ¶¶ 70, 71, 118.)

Based on these allegations, the court finds that Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to find that Defendant Braham acted with malice or oppression by engaging in conduct with a willful and conscious disregard to her rights as a tenant by repeatedly harassing and threatening Plaintiff with unlawful eviction and false reporting Plaintiff to child protective services in order to get Plaintiff to vacate the Rental Unit.

However, the court finds that Plaintiff has failed to allege facts to show that Defendant Johnson as a co-owner or agent of Defendant perpetrated, authorized, or knowingly ratified Defendant Braham’s conduct. The Complaint is devoid of factual allegations to support the finding that Defendant Johnson had notice of the need for various repairs to the Unit and acted intentionally in not making repairs. That Defendant Johnson was grossly negligent in undertaking repairs is also insufficient to show that acted intentionally. “Mere negligence, even gross negligence, is not sufficient to justify such an award” for punitive damages. (Kendall Yacht Corp. v. United California Bank (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 949, 958.) Therefore, the motion to strike as to Defendant Johnson is granted with leave to amend.

Conclusion

Defendants’ motion to strike is granted with leave to amend as to Defendant Johnson and denied as to Defendant Braham. Plaintiff is granted 10 days leave to amend. The court sets the OSC RE: Amended Complaint for November 29, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. Moving party to give notice.