Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case 20STCV41858 2022-08-02 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

MOVING PARTIES: (1) Defendants McCarty Memorial Christian Church (“McCarty”); Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) Pacific Southwest Region (“PSWR”); Bruce Indermill (“Indermill”); Branden Hendricks (“Hendricks”); and Lorenzo Johnson (“Johnson”) (collectively, “Moving Defendants”)

This action arises out of a landlord/tenant relationship. Plaintiff filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) on November 2, 2020. The Court sustained demurrers to the Complaint on April 28, 2021. On May 18, 2021, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (the “FAC”). On August 6, 2022, the Court sustained demurrers to the FAC. On August 26, 2022, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (the “SAC”) alleging: (1) interference with rights under the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance (“LARSO”) - conspiracy (Civil Code section 52.1); (2) trespass with malice under CCP section 1159; (3) breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment under Civil Code section 1927; (4) negligence under Civil Code section 1714; (5) violation of Civil Code section 1940.9; (6) malicious prosecution; (7) violation of civil rights: conspiracy; (8) violation of civil rights: unlawful search and seizure under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments; and (9) due process violations under the Fourteenth Amendment. On February 8, 2022, the Court issued an order sustaining Moving Defendants’ demurrers to the first through third and fifth through ninth causes of action in the SAC. The Court granted Plaintiff 20 days leave to amend the allegations for the trespass and Bane Act violations asserted in the SAC’s second cause of action. The Court did not grant Plaintiff leave to amend the other causes of action. None of the demurrers to the SAC challenged the sufficiency of the fourth cause of action for negligence under Civil Code section 1714.

On February 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Plaintiff’s Amended Second Cause of Action” (the “ASCA”). The ASCA did not clearly identify a cause of action. On April 29, 2022, the Court sustained Moving Defendants’ demurrers to the ASCA and found that Plaintiff had failed to allege a cause of action. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended pleading but limited Plaintiff to asserting the negligence claim that was uncontested in the SAC and trespass. The Court ruled that Plaintiff could not assert any new causes of action in an amended pleading.

On May 31, 2021, Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint (the “TAC”). The TAC alleges: (1) conspiracy to commit trespass; (2) continuing trespass; (3) trespass to chattel; (4) gross negligence; (5) negligence per se; (6) negligence (Civil Code section 1714); (7) invasion of privacy; (8) willful and wanton misconduct leading to public and private nuisance; and (9) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Moving Defendants filed a demurrer (the “Demurrer”) to each cause of action alleged in the TAC except for the sixth cause of action on the grounds that: (1) the TAC contravenes the Court’s April 29, 2022 order because it asserts new causes of action; (2) the TAC fails to allege sufficient facts to state a cause of action; and (3) and the pleadings are uncertain. Moving Defendants also filed two motions to strike portions of the TAC related to the prayer for relief: one on behalf of McCarty and PSWR (the “McCarty Motion”) and the other on behalf of Hendricks, Johnson, and Indermill (the “Hendricks Motion”) (collectively, the “Motions”).[2]

As a preliminary matter, the Court has not considered matters outside of the pleadings and the Court’s previous orders in ruling on the Demurrer and Motions. Accordingly, the Court STRIKES the declaration Plaintiff filed concurrently with her Opposition.

A demurrer tests the sufficiency of a complaint as a matter of law. (Durell v. Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1358.) The court accepts as true all material factual allegations and affords them a liberal construction, but it does not consider conclusions of fact or law, opinions, speculation, or allegations contrary to law or judicially noticed facts. (Shea Homes Limited Partnership v. County of Alameda (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1246, 1254.) With respect to a demurrer, the complaint must be construed liberally by drawing reasonable inferences from the facts pleaded. (Rodas v. Spiegel (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 513, 517.) A demurrer will be sustained without leave to amend if there exists no reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)

The Court has previously sustained demurrers to Plaintiff’s conspiracy causes of action without leave to amend; accordingly, the Court SUSTAINS the Demurrer to the first cause of action without leave to amend.

The elements of trespass are: (1) the plaintiff’s ownership or control of the property; (2) the defendant’s intentional, reckless, or negligent entry on the property; (3) lack of permission to enter the property or acts in excess of the permission; (4) actual harm; and (5) the defendant’s conduct as a substantial factor in causing the harm. (Ralphs Grocery Co. v. Victory Consultants, Inc. (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 245, 261-62.)

The second cause of action, although labelled “continued trespass,” alleges sufficient facts to state a trespass claim as the TAC alleges that Moving Defendants entered Plaintiff’s residence without her permission and caused her harm. (See TAC ¶ 101.) The Court therefore OVERRULES the Demurrer to the second cause of action.

Trespass to chattels has not been alleged in previous pleadings. The Court restricted the TAC to Plaintiff’s trespass and negligence claims. The Court therefore SUSTAINS the Demurrer to the third cause of action without leave to amend.

The fourth cause of action is based on an alleged violation of Health & Safety Code section 17920.3. The negligence cause of action alleged in the SAC is not rooted in alleged Health & Safety Code section 17920.3 violations. The Court therefore SUSTAINS the Demurrer to the fourth cause of action without leave to amend.

The fifth cause of action, although labelled “negligence per se,” is rooted in the same factual allegations as the negligence cause of action stated in the SAC. (See SAC ¶¶ 116-17; TAC ¶ 104.) The Court therefore OVERRULES the Demurrer to the fifth cause of action.

The Court ordered Plaintiff to limit the TAC be limited to her trespass and negligence claims. The seventh through ninth causes of action in the TAC exceed the scope of permissible amendments. The Court therefore SUSTAINS the Demurrer to the seventh, eighth, and ninth causes of action without leave to amend.

Under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 436, a motion to strike either: (1) strikes any irrelevant, false or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) strikes any pleading or part thereof not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule or order of court. (CCP § 436.)

A plaintiff may recover punitive damages in an action for breach of an obligation not arising from contract when the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. (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).) Despicable conduct is conduct which is so vile, base, contemptible, miserable, wretched or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people. (Mock v. Michigan Millers Mutual Ins. Co. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 306, 331.) Oppression is defined as 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 which is so vile, base, contemptible, miserable, wretched or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people.” (Tomaselli v. Transamerica Ins. Co. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1287.) Absent an intent to injure the plaintiff, malice requires more than a “willful and conscious” disregard of the plaintiff’s interests; the additional component of “despicable conduct” must be found. (College Hospital Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 725.)

As a preliminary matter, in addition to seeking punitive damages, the prayer for relief in the TAC appears to include a request for leave of court to allow Plaintiff to file an amended pleading that includes claims for: (1) punitive damages against religious organizations; (2) a cause of action for civil rights claims; and (3) a cause of action for defamation. These requests are properly brought before the Court by filing a noticed motion and are not properly included in a prayer for relief. (See CCP §§ 425.14, 473.) The Court therefore STRIKES these allegations. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the McCarty Motion in its entirety without leave to amend.

The Court GRANTS the Hendricks Motion in part insofar as it addresses the allegations discussed above. The Court DENIES the Hendricks Motion with respect to the request for punitive damages connected to the alleged harm caused by Moving Defendants aside from religious organizations. The TAC sufficiently alleges circumstances of malice, fraud or oppression to allow the request for punitive damages to proceed past the pleading stage.

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court¿strongly¿encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative.¿¿If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to¿SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org¿stating your intention to appear in person.¿ The Court will then inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date.¿ This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

[1] The Court exercises its discretion and has considered Plaintiff’s opposition (the “Opposition”) despite its late filing.

[2] Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the Motions, although her Opposition to the Demurrer includes a brief discussion of the Motions.