Judge: H. Jay Ford, III, Case: 22SMCV04787, Date: 2024-03-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV04787    Hearing Date: March 12, 2024    Dept: O

  Case Name:  Myers, et al. v. Kenmore Realty Corp., et al.

SUBJECT:                 MOTION TO STRIKE

MOVING PARTY:   Defendants Kenmore Realty Corp and Farhad Eshaghpour

RESP. PARTY:         Plaintiff Andrew Myers and David Desmond

TENTATIVE RULING

            Defendants Kenmore Realty Corp and Farhad Eshaghpours’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Andrew Myers and David Desmonds’ Punitive Damages allegations and Prayer for Punitive damages is DENIED. Plaintiffs plead sufficient factual allegations for a jury to possibly find Defendants acted with malice towards the Plaintiffs.

            “As the California Supreme Court long ago explained: “ ‘Exemplary or punitive damages are not recoverable as matter of right. Their allowance rests entirely in the discretion of the jury, and they may be awarded only where there is some evidence of fraud, malice, express or implied, or oppression.’ ” (Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood Apartments (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1052, quoting Clark v. McClurg (1932) 215 Cal. 279, 282.)

            “As longstanding authority makes clear, punitive damages may be awarded in an action by a residential tenant based on the landlord's interference with peaceful possession.” (Spinks, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at p. 1055.)

            Plaintiffs plead numerous facts alleging Defendants interference with the peaceful possession the Plaintiffs’ rent-stabilized unit. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that their downstairs neighbor began a campaign of harassment and intimidation against them. (Compl., ¶¶13–16.) Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants intentionally chose not to take reasonable measures to prevent this campaign because they wanted to force the Plaintiffs to vacate the property so that they could re-lease the premises at a market rate, rather than the rental rate mandated by the West Hollywood Rent Stabilization Ordinance. (Id., ¶¶ 21–22.) Plaintiffs allege that they ultimately fled the property in fear for their lives after repeated pleas to the Defendants to address the threats from the downstairs neighbor failed. (Id., ¶ 19.) Plaintiffs further allege that the landlord changed the locks to the building where their apartment is located, further dispossessing them of the ability to access their apartment. (Id., ¶ 21.) Plaintiffs allege that these acts violated the West Hollywood anti-tenant harassment ordinance, codified at City of West Hollywood Municipal Code §17.52.090 (Id., ¶ 36.) The Court finds that these allegations are sufficient for the jury to possibly find that Defendants acted with malice towards the Plaintiffs.