Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 20STCV38200, Date: 2023-05-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV38200    Hearing Date: May 25, 2023    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      May 25, 2023                          TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE:                         MATTHEW STEPHEN STACHNIK, an individual, v. SUN YONG, an individual; YU XUEMEI, an individual, and DOES 1-20, inclusive.  

CASE NO.:                 20STCV38200

DEMURRER WITH MOTION TO STRIKE

DEMURRING PARTY:       Defendants Rongling Rong and JY Golden Investment LLC (“Demurring Parties”)

RESPONDING PARTY:      Plaintiff Matthew Stephen Stachnik

SERVICE:                              Filed February 16, 2023

OPPOSITION:                       Filed May 12, 2023

REPLY:                                   Filed May 18, 2023

RELIEF REQUESTED

             Demurring Parties demurrer to Plaintiff’s second, fifth, and ninth cause of action.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiff Matthew Stephen Stachnik’s (“Plaintiff”) claim that he rented an Airbnb stay at property owned by Defendants (“Subject Property”), which had a beg bug infestation that caused injury to Plaintiff’s person and property. Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) on November 2, 2022, alleging nine causes of action for (1) statutory violation of habitability, (2) battery, (3) negligence, (4) nuisance, (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (6) negligent infliction of emotional distress, (7) breach of contract, (8) breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment, and (9) fraudulent concealment.   

TENTATIVE RULING

             Demurring Parties’ demurrer to Plaintiff’s second, fifth, and ninth causes of action is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

            Demurring Parties’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages is GRANTED with leave to amend.

LEGAL STANDARD

Demurrer

A general demurrer may be taken to a complaint where “[t]he pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e).) A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action.  (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 740, 747.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or by proper judicial notice.  (Code Civ. Proc. section 430.30(a).)  A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters.  (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905.)  The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.  (Hahn v. Mirda, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)

            Motion to Strike

Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike a pleading or any part thereof.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1).)  The court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a).)  The court may also strike all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with California law, a court rule, or an order of the court.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).)  An immaterial or irrelevant allegation is one that is not essential to the statement of a claim or defense; is neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or defense; or a demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint.  (Code Civ. Proc., 431.10, subd. (b).)  The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437.)   

DISCUSSION

            Second Cause of Action for Battery

            Demurring Parties object to Plaintiff’s cause of action for battery.

            “The elements of civil battery are: (1) defendant intentionally performed an act that resulted in a harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff's person; (2) plaintiff did not consent to the contact; and (3) the harmful or offensive contact caused injury, damage, loss or harm to plaintiff.” (Brown v. Ransweiler (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 516, 526-27.)

            Plaintiff’s claim for battery is based on his allegations that Defendants knew of the existence of bed bugs at the Subject Property but rented the room to Plaintiff. (FAC ¶¶ 91-95.) However, none of Plaintiff’s allegations allege that Defendants intentionally acted to create a harmful or offensive contact. “ ‘ “A harmful contact, intentionally done is the essence of a battery.” ’ ” (Piedra v. Dugan (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1483, 1495.)

            In opposition, Plaintiff relies on Ashcraft v. King (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 604, 613, where the Court stated: “In an action for civil batter the element of intent is satisfied if the evidence shows defendant acted with a “willful disregard” of the plaintiff's rights.” Plaintiff contends he alleges that Defendants acted with willful disregard because they knew of the existence of bed bugs. Plaintiff’s reliance on Ashcraft is misplaced. In Ashcraft, the plaintiff complained of the fact that he had granted a doctor permission to operate on the condition the doctor used blood donated by the plaintiff’s family but that the doctor had used blood from the hospital’s general supply. (Ibid.) In Ashcraft there was a clear act of intentional contact. Here, Plaintiff fails to allege such an act.

            Plaintiff’s second cause of action for battery fails to allege facts sufficient to state a claim. Demurring Parties’ demurrer to Plaintiff’s second cause of action is sustained.

            Fifth Cause of Action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

            Demurring Parties demurrer to Plaintiff’s fifth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Demurring Parties argue, in part, in Plaintiff fails to allege outrageous conduct and intent.

            “ ‘ “[T]o state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress a plaintiff must show: (1) outrageous conduct by the defendant; (2) the defendant's intention of causing or reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress; (3) the plaintiff's suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (4) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant's outrageous conduct.” ’ ” (Vasquez v. Franklin Management Real Estate Fund, Inc. (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 819, 832.)

            “To be outrageous, the defendant's conduct must be either intentional or reckless, and it must be so extreme as to exceed all bounds of decency in a civilized community. [Citation.] Furthermore, that conduct must be specifically directed at the plaintiff.” (Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood Apartments (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1045.)

            The FAC similarly alleges here that Defendants were aware of the bed bug infection, failed to abate the issue, and rented the Subject Property to Plaintiff. (FAC ¶¶ 145-146.) However, Plaintiff’s allegations fail to allege that outrageous conduct that was directed at Plaintiff. Thus, Plaintiff’s fifth cause of action fails to state a claim.

            Demurring Parties demurrer to Plaintiff’s fifth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress is sustained.

            Ninth Cause of Action for Fraudulent Concealment

            Demurring Parties demurrers to Plaintiff’s ninth cause of action for fraudulent concealment.

            “ ‘The required elements for fraudulent concealment are (1) concealment or suppression of a material fact; (2) by a defendant with a duty to disclose the fact to the plaintiff; (3) the defendant intended to defraud the plaintiff by intentionally concealing or suppressing the fact; (4) the plaintiff was unaware of the fact and would not have acted as he or she did if he or she had known of the concealed or suppressed fact; and (5) plaintiff sustained damage as a result of the concealment or suppression of the fact. [Citation.]’ ” (Hambrick v. Healthcare Partners Medical Group, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 124, 62.)

            “[T]he requirement that ‘[f]raud must be pleaded with specificity’ applies equally to a cause of action for fraud and deceit based on concealment.” (Cansino v. Bank of America (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1462, 1472.) “General and conclusory allegations are insufficient.” (Id. at p. 1469.)

            Here, Plaintiff’s allegations fail to allege with specificity that Defendants intended to fraudulently conceal the existence of bed bugs. The FAC summarily alleges that Defendants intended to withhold information about the existence of bed bugs. (FAC ¶ 183 and 192.) Plaintiff also alleges that various reviews on the Airbnb website complained of the existence of bed bugs on the property. (Id. ¶ 185.) While those allegations may support a claim that Defendants knew of the bed bugs, it does not support Plaintiff’s cause of action that Defendants concealed the existence of the bed bugs. Plaintiff does not allege that Defendants concealed the reviews from him. In fact, the face of the complaint implies that the reviews openly provided information to the public, including Plaintiff, that the Subject Property had bed bugs.

            Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim for fraudulent concealment. Demurring Parties’ demurrer to Plaintiff’s ninth cause of action is sustained.

            Motion to Strike

            Demurring Parties also move to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages.

            Punitive damages may be imposed where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.  (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a). A plaintiff seeking punitive damages “must include specific factual allegations showing that defendant's conduct was oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious to support a claim for punitive damages. [Citation.] Punitive damages my not be pleaded generally.” (Today’s IV, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 1137, 1193.)

            Plaintiff’s FAC seeks punitive damages based on the fact that Defendants were aware of bed bugs at the Subject Property, failed to abate the issue, and rented the Subject Property to Plaintiff. Other than conclusory allegations that Defendants acted with fraud, oppression, and malice, the FAC fails to allege specific facts sufficient to support a prayer for punitive damages.

            Demurring Parties’ motion to strike is granted.

CONCLUSION

            Demurring Parties’ demurrer to Plaintiff’s second, fifth, and ninth causes of action is SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend.

            Demurring Parties’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages is GRANTED with 20 days leave to amend.

            Moving Parties to give notice.

Dated:   May 25, 2023                                                ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their

intention to submit.  Parties intending to appear are strongly encouraged to appear remotely.  alhdeptx@lacourt.org