Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 23STCV18629, Date: 2023-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV18629    Hearing Date: December 6, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Essex Portfolio, LP (“Moving Defendant”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Clayton Risner (“Mr. Risner”) and Adrianna Risner (“Ms. Risner”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)

The Court has considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of a landlord/tenant relationship.  Plaintiffs’ complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges: (1) negligence; (2) negligent hiring and supervision; (3) tortious breach of the warranty of habitability; (4) breach of the implied warranty of habitability; (5) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment; (6) nuisance; (7) violation of the Los Angeles Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance (“LAMC”); (8) constructive eviction; (9) failure to timely return security deposit; and (10) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

In relevant part, the Complaint alleges: In or around March 2021, Plaintiffs entered into a lease agreement with Moving Defendant and began to rent an apartment in a property (the “Property”) owned by Moving Defendant.  (Complaint ¶ 9, Exhibit A.)  During Plaintiffs’ tenancy, there was a recurring leak in the Property’s ceiling that would cause Plaintiffs’ smoke detectors to go off, which frightened Plaintiffs’ toddler.  (Complaint ¶ 12.) 

On or around January 20, 2023, a severe leak caused water damage in the primary bedroom.  (Complaint ¶ 13.)  After Plaintiffs lodged a complaint with Moving Defendant, Moving Defendant installed a dehumidifier, and Plaintiffs had to move most of their belongings to the living room.  (See Complaint ¶¶ 14-16.)  The conditions of the Property caused by the leak and Moving Defendant’s repair attempts were particularly challenging for Plaintiffs because at the time, Ms. Risner was around nine months pregnant.  (See Complaint ¶ 18.)  Plaintiffs’ requests for relocation or rent reduction were rejected by Moving Defendant.  (Complaint ¶ 20.) In late February 2023, days after Ms. Risner, gave birth to Plaintiffs’ second child, a leak caused further water damage to the Property.  (Complaint ¶ 22.)  Despite Plaintiffs’ repeated requests for repairs and inquiries about being temporarily relocated, Moving Defendant did not undertake any repairs to address the source of the leak, and as a result, on or around March 22, 2023, Plaintiffs notified Moving Defendant that they would be vacating the Property within 30 days.  (See Complaint ¶¶ 23-34.) 

Moving Defendant filed a demurrer (the “Demurrer”) to the third, seventh, and tenth causes of action on the grounds that the Complaint fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action and is uncertain.  Moving Defendant also filed a motion to strike (the “Motion”) portions of the Complaint concerning punitive damages.

DEMURRER

Meet and Confer

The meet and confer requirement has been met for the Demurrer and Motion.

Legal Standard

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.)  Demurrers for uncertainty are disfavored.  (Chen v. Berenjian (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 811, 822.)  A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.  (Id.)   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.) 

Third Cause of Action

To state a claim for breach of the implied warranty of habitability, a plaintiff must allege: (1) a material defective condition affecting the habitability of the premise; (2) notice to the landlord of the condition within a reasonable time after the tenant discovers the condition; (3) the landlord was given a reasonable time to correct the deficiency; and (4) resulting damages.  (Erlach v. Sierra Asset Servicing, LLC (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1297.)  With appropriate pleadings of fact, a tenant may state a cause of action in tort against his landlord for damages resulting from a breach of the implied warranty of habitability.  (Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 903, 918-19.)

Moving Defendant argues that the tortious breach of the warranty of habitability claim is duplicative of the negligence cause of action and contractual breach of warranty claims.  As alleged, the negligence and tortious breach of the implied warranty of habitability claims identify slightly varying sources of duty.  (See Complaint ¶¶ 51, 65.)  The Court finds that the tortious breach of the warranty of habitability claim is not wholly redundant to other claims alleged in the Complaint and therefore OVERRULES the Demurrer to the third cause of action.

Seventh Cause of Action: Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance

            The Los Angeles Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance provides, in part:

Tenant Harassment shall be defined as a landlord's knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific tenant or tenants that causes detriment and harm, and that serves no lawful purpose, including, but not limited to, the following actions: 

… 

2.¿¿¿Failing to perform and timely complete necessary repairs and maintenance required by Federal, State, County, or local housing, health, or safety laws; or failure to follow applicable industry standards to minimize exposure to noise, dust, lead paint, asbestos, or other building materials with potentially harmful health impacts. 

… 

¿  ¿ 

8.¿¿¿Threatening to or engaging in any act or omission which interferes with the tenant's right to use and enjoy the rental unit or whereby the premises are rendered unfit for human habitation and occupancy. 

… 

¿ 

16.¿¿¿Other repeated acts or omissions of such significance as to substantially interfere with or disturb the comfort, repose, peace or quiet of a tenant(s) and that cause, are likely to cause, or are committed with the objective to cause a tenant(s) to surrender or waive any rights in relation to such tenancy. 

(LAMC §§ 45.33, subds. (2), (8), (16).) 

            The Complaint adequately alleges a claim for violations of the Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance.  The Complaint alleges that Moving Defendant failed to complete repairs, and ultimately ignored Plaintiffs’ requests for repairs, despite being aware of the heightened inconvenience the leak caused Plaintiffs after the birth of their second child.  The Court therefore OVERRULES the Demurrer to the seventh cause of action.

Tenth Cause of Action: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

To state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must allege: (1) the defendant’s extreme and outrageous behavior with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress; and (3) the defendant’s extreme and outrageous conduct was the actual and proximate cause of the severe emotional distress.  (Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1050.)  Conduct is considered extreme and outrageous when it is so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community.  (Id.)  Behavior may be considered outrageous if a defendant: (1) abuses a position that gives him power over a plaintiff’s interest; (2) knows the plaintiff is susceptible to injuries through emotional distress; or (3) acts intentionally or unreasonably when the conduct is likely to result in mental distress and illness.  (Agarwal v. Johnson (1979) 25 Cal.3d 932, 946.)  Whether conduct is extreme or outrageous is generally a question of fact.  (See Barker v. Fox & Associates (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 333, 356.)

The Court finds that the Complaint sufficiently alleges a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.  The Complaint alleges that Moving Defendant repeatedly failed to permanently repair the leak at the Property and ultimately disregarded Plaintiffs’ renewed complaints about water damage and the disarray caused by Moving Defendant’s repair attempts.  The Complaint also alleges that Moving Defendant disregarded Plaintiffs’ requests despite knowing that Plaintiffs’ vulnerability to the conditions at the Property was exacerbated by Ms. Risner’s pregnancy and the birth of Plaintiffs’ second child.  The Court therefore OVERRULES the Demurrer to the tenth cause of action.

MOTION TO STRIKE

Legal Standard

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.)

Punitive Damages        

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).) 

The Court finds that the Complaint sufficiently alleges conduct to warrant an award of punitive damages, such as Moving Defendant’s disregard of Plaintiffs’ complaints and requests despite its awareness of Plaintiffs’ vulnerability.  (See Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 903, 920.  The Court therefore DENIES the Motion.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

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. 

  Dated this 6th day of December 2023