Judge Gary Y. Tanaka, Case 22TRCV00791 2023-04-26 Tentative Ruling

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT

Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka Wednesday, April 26, 2023

Department B Calendar No. 12

Manuel Migueles, et al.’s Motion to Strike Portions of Complaint is granted with 20 days leave to amend.

Plaintiffs’ Complaint was filed on September 13, 2022. Plaintiffs allege the following facts. Plaintiffs are tenants/residents at 222 W. Lime Street Apartment C, Inglewood, California 90301 pursuant to a lease agreement. Defendants are the owners and/or managers. The property suffers from water intrusion and mold. Defendants failed to remedy the situation. Plaintiffs allege the following causes of action: 1. Statutory Breach of the Warranty of Habitability (Civ. Code 1941, 1941.1); 2. Tortious Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability; 3. Negligence; 4. Breach of Contract; 5. Nuisance; 6. Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment; 7. Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; 8. IIED; 9. Violation of Inglewood Stabilization Ordinance – Harassment; 10. Violation of Civil Code 1942.4.

Defendant set forth a meet and confer declaration in sufficient compliance with CCP § 435.5. (Decl. Tiffanie Q. Spivey, ¶¶ 4-5.)

The court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. CCP § 436(a). The court may also strike 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. CCP § 436(b). The grounds for a motion to strike are that the pleading has irrelevant, false or improper matter, or has not been drawn or filed in conformity with laws. CCP § 436. The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. CCP § 437.

Defendants move to strike the following: “1. Page 8, paragraphs 47-49, in their entirety 2. Page 10, paragraph 62, it its entirety 3. Page 11-12, paragraph 73, in its entirety 4. Page 14, paragraph 88, in its entirety 5. Page 16, paragraph 105, in its entirety 6. Page 18-19, paragraph 122, in its entirety 7. Page 20, paragraph 132, in its entirety 8. Page 21, paragraph 141, in its entirety 9. Prayer For Relief, page 22, item 5, lines 9-11.” (Notice of Motion, page 2, lines 1-9).

“(a) In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.

(b) An employer shall not be liable for damages pursuant to subdivision (a), based upon acts of an employee of the employer, unless the employer had advance knowledge of the unfitness of the employee and employed him or her with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others or authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct for which the damages are awarded or was personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. With respect to a corporate employer, the advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, ratification or act of oppression, fraud, or malice must be on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation.”

Punitive damages may be recoverable against a landlord when the landlord’s breach of the implied warranty of habitability also constitutes facts to meet intentional nuisance or intentional infliction of emotional distress. Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 903, 919-21. While Stoiber remains recognized law, this does not excuse or eliminate the well-established authority which states that the pleading of punitive damages requires the pleading of specific facts.

Plaintiff has set forth conclusory allegations that Defendant acted willfully, maliciously, intentionally, and/or recklessly to support Plaintiffs’ allegations and prayer for punitive damages. A Complaint’s “conclusory characterization of defendant's conduct as intentional, wilful 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, 872. Here, Plaintiffs’ Complaint is replete with allegations that Defendant knew or should have known that Plaintiffs would be injured by the conditions but knowingly and intentionally failed to repair the conditions. However, the allegations are based on conclusions rather than underlying specific facts to support the conclusions. Specific facts are necessary to plead a claim for punitive damages.