Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 23STCV19207, Date: 2024-01-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV19207    Hearing Date: January 11, 2024    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Richard Thomas Kissel, Frances Kissel, and Dolan & Knight Property Management, Inc.  (collectively, “Moving Defendant”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs

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

BACKGROUND

The currently operative second amended complaint (the “SAC”) alleges ten causes of action arising out of a landlord/tenant relationship.  In relevant part, the SAC alleges: Plaintiffs began leasing an apartment (the “Unit”) from Moving Defendants in 2016.  (SAC ¶ 25.)  Throughout Plaintiffs’ tenancy, the Unit had habitability issues including: severe rodent and pest infestations, deteriorating fixtures, faulty electrical wiring, unsafe common areas, and nuisances.  (See SAC ¶¶ 29-53.)  Despite receiving notice of these conditions on multiple occasions, Moving Defendants failed to properly address these habitability concerns.  (See SAC ¶¶ 38-41, 48-49, 54, 56-59.)  In May 2023, Moving Defendants retaliated against Plaintiffs for their complaints about living conditions by initiating eviction proceedings.  (SAC ¶ 61.)

On November 28, 2023, Moving Defendants filed a motion to strike (the “Motion”) portions of the SAC relating to punitive damages.

DISCUSSION

Meet and Confer

The meet and confer requirement has been met.

Legal Standard

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.)

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 SAC sufficiently alleges conduct that may entitle Plaintiffs to recover an award of punitive damages, such as Moving Defendants’ repeated failure to address the pervasive substandard conditions at the Property despite their awareness and acknowledgement of the habitability problems.  (See 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 11th day of January 2024