Judge: H. Jay Ford, III, Case: 24SMCV01073, Date: 2024-10-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV01073    Hearing Date: October 17, 2024    Dept: O

 Case Name:  Germain v. Behringer Harvard Redwood

SUBJECT:                 MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES

MOVING PARTY:   Defendants GS Redwood Property, LLC and Greystar California, Inc.

RESP. PARTY:         Plaintiff Genevieve Germain

TENTATIVE RULING

            Defendants GS Redwood Property, LLC and Greystar California, Inc.’s Motion to Strike Punitive Damages is DENIED.

REASONING

            A plaintiff may recover punitive damages in an action for the breach of an obligation not arising out of contract where the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. (See Cal. Civ. Code §3294 (a).)

            “(a) In an action for breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant had 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.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a.)

            “Malice is ‘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, subd. (c)(1).) Oppression is ‘despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights.’ (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(2).) Despicable conduct is conduct that is so vile, base, contemptible, miserable, wretched or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people. Such conduct has been described as having the character of outrage frequently associated with crime.” (Scott v. Phoenix Schools, Inc. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 702, 715.)

            “[E]ven though certain language pleads ultimate facts or conclusions of law, such language when read in context with the facts alleged as to defendants' conduct may adequately plead the evil motive requisite to recovery of punitive damages.” (Monge v. Superior Ct., (1986)176 Cal. App. 3d 503, 510.) Furthermore, “[m]alice and oppression may be inferred from the circumstances of a defendant's conduct.” (Id., at p. 511.)

            Defendants GS Redwood Property, LLC and Greystar California, Inc. (“Defendants”) move to strike Plaintiff Genevieve Germain’s (“Plaintiff”) prayer for punitive damages and associated allegations in the Complaint. (See Motion, p. 2.) Defendants argue that a claim for punitive damages upon allegations of fraud was not plead with proper specificity, and that the attached deposition testimony to the Complaint contradicts the pleadings thus failing to meet the heightened pleading requirements for punitive damages. The Court is not persuaded.

            Plaintiff pleads the necessary facts to reach a prayer for punitive damages within the 7^th cause of action for fraudulent concealment.  “[T]he elements of a cause of action for fraud based on concealment are: (1) the defendant must have concealed or suppressed a material fact, (2) the defendant must have been under a duty to disclose the fact to the plaintiff, (3) the defendant must have intentionally concealed or suppressed the fact with the intent to defraud the plaintiff, (4) the plaintiff must have been unaware of the fact and would not have acted as he did if he had known of the concealed or suppressed fact, and (5) as a result of the concealment or suppression of the fact, the plaintiff must have sustained damage.” (Bigler-Engler v. Breg, Inc. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 276, 310–311, citations omitted; see also CACI 1901)

            Plaintiffs plead that Defendants “received complaints about toxic fumes and smells from prior tenants of Plaintiff’s unit and were on notice that said tenants vacated the unit due to health issues that arose as a result of exposure to unsafe levels of formaldehyde.” (Compl., ¶ 65.) Plaintiffs plead that Defendants had full knowledge of these facts and nevertheless failed to disclose them at any time to the Plaintiff. (Id., ¶¶ 22, 65.) Plaintiffs plead that Defendants failure to disclose these facts to the Plaintiff was intentional, for the purpose of inducing her to rent the unit, and “pay any all sums owed under the lease.” (Id., ¶¶ 68–69.) Plaintiffs pleads she relied upon the Defendants alleged “concealment and/or lack of disclosure” of the alleged toxic fumes, and has “suffered substantial damages as a direct and proximate result.” (Id., ¶¶ 68–69.) Plaintiff alleges she was diagnosed with “issues related to toxic exposure,” and “hyposensitivity pneumonitis, an immune system disorder in which the lungs become inflated,” as a result of the “elevated airborne levels of volatile organic compounds (“VOSs”),” present in her unit. (Id., ¶¶ 13,14, 67, 68.) Plaintiff alleges that the director of Real Estate for the Defendants, Sara Vaca testified, and attached deposition testimony to the Complaint, that Defendants had knowledge that “the prior tenants of Plaintiff’s unity vacated Plaintiff’s unit due to environmental concerns.” (Id., ¶ 65; Ex. B.) Plaintiffs allege all the facts necessary to plead a cause of action for fraudulent concealment, and the attached deposition does not contradict those allegations. 

            Finally, given Defendants substantial Reply memorandum, the Court overrules Defendant’s objection to Plaintiff’s late served and filed opposition.