Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 23STCV29514, Date: 2024-04-29 Tentative Ruling

This action arises from alleged habitability issues at a property located at 3714 Fletcher Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90065 (the “Property”). On December 4, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, alleging causes of action for: (1) negligence, (2) breach of implied warranty of habitability; (3) violation of Los Angeles Municipal Code § 151.10 et seq.; and (4) civil penalties for violation of the Los Angeles Anti-Harassment Ordinance § 45.30 et seq.

On March 14, 2024, Defendant filed and served the instant Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint (the “Motion”). Defendant seeks to strike punitive damages allegations from the second cause of action in the Complaint and the prayer for relief thereto.

On April 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed and served an opposition to the Motion, to which Defendant replied on April 22, 2024.

Initially, the Court finds that the meet and confer requirement has been met pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 435.5(a). (Webb Decl., ¶¶ 6-7.)

“Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1).) A court may “[s]trike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 436, subd. (a).) A court may “[s]trike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).)

“In order to survive a motion to strike an allegation of punitive damages, the ultimate facts showing an entitlement to such relief must be pled by a plaintiff.” (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.) Civ. Code § 3294 authorizes punitive damages upon a showing of malice, fraud, or oppression. Malice is defined as either “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.) Fraud under Civ. Code § 3294(c)(3) “means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.” Civ. Code § 3294(c)(2) defines oppression as “despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.” Specific facts must be alleged in support of punitive damages. (Hillard v. A.H. Robins Co. (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 374, 391-392.) Facts must be pled to show that a defendant “act[ed] with the intent to vex, injure or annoy, or with a conscious disregard of the plaintiff’s rights.” (Silberg v. California Life Ins. Co. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 452, 462.) Conduct that is merely negligent will not support a claim for punitive damages. (Tomaselli v. Transamerica Ins. Co. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1288.)

The Complaint alleges the following: Defendant’s predecessor illegally converted the rental unit into a dwelling unit and thereafter offered it for residential purposes and rented it out to Plaintiff despite the lack of all required building permits and licenses. (Complaint, ¶ 7.) Defendant charged Plaintiff per month for the renting out of what is essentially an unlivable unit disguised as a duplex. (Complaint, ¶ 7.) The Property is subject to the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance. (Complaint, ¶ 7.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has maintained a campaign of harassment for the purpose of driving out Plaintiff without providing the relocation benefits to which he is entitled per the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance. (Complaint, ¶ 8.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant entered the Property without issuing all appropriate 24-hour notices, demanded that Plaintiff vacate the Property without relocation benefits, timely failed to address habitability issues that make the unit unfit for human habitation, and allowed disturbance of the peace and quiet of Plaintiff. (Complaint, ¶ 9.) Plaintiff alleges that the condition of the Property has also seriously affected his physical and mental health. (Complaint, ¶ 10.) Plaintiff alleges that a portion of the ceiling is charred due to a fire that occurred in or about 1993, and there are cracks in the concrete floor and the wall. (Complaint, ¶ 10.)

Plaintiff further alleges that the cracks in the walls cause flooding in the unit and the unit is also infested with bugs, which an exterminator has confirmed to be subterranean termites. (Complaint, ¶ 10.) Plaintiff alleges that notice has been given to Defendant of such conditions, but Defendant has done nothing to address these issues. (Complaint, ¶ 10.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts showing malice, fraud, or oppression to warrant the imposition of punitive damages. The second cause of action for breach of implied warranty of habitability, to which Defendant seeks to strike punitive damages, only sets forth conclusory allegations in support of punitive damages. (FAC, ¶ 24.) Also, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s reliance on Penner v. Falk (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 858 to support the argument that the Complaint gives rise to punitive damages is inapposite. Penner v. Falk, supra, 153 Cal.App.3d 858 held that punitive damages were proper where a complaint alleged criminal activity such as robbery, murder, and burglary at an apartment complex. Here, the Complaint makes no such allegations of criminal activity. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s allegations are much too conclusory to support the imposition of punitive damages. Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged fraud, malice, or oppression.

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.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court