Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22AHCV01223, Date: 2023-04-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22AHCV01223 Hearing Date: April 10, 2023 Dept: X
Tentative Ruling
Judge Joel L. Lofton,
Department X
HEARING DATE: April
10, 2023 TRIAL
DATE: No date set.
CASE: OLIVIA RADBILL, an
individual; MAX RADBILL, an individual, v. QIJIE PROPERTIES, LLC, a California
Limited Liability Company; RAMPART PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC., a California
corporation; DBF IDGT MONTEREY LLC, a California limited liability company;
MOSS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.; a California corporation; and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive.
CASE NO.: 22AHCV01223
MOTION
TO STRIKE
MOVING PARTY: Defendants Quijie Properties, LLC
and Rampart Property Management, Inc. (“Moving Parties”
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs
Olivia Radbill and Max Radbill
SERVICE: Filed February 22, 2023
OPPOSITION: Filed February 28, 2023
REPLY: Filed April 3, 2023
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Moving Parties move to strike Plaintiffs’ prayer for punitive damages.
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of Plaintiffs
Olivia Radbill and Max Radbill’s (“Plaintiffs”) claim that they leased property
located at 154 Monterey Road, Apt. 6, South Pasadena, CA 91030 (“Property”)
from Defendants. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants were aware of but failed to
remedy various uninhabitable conditions.
Plaintiff filed a first amended
complaint (“FAC”) on February 1, 2023, alleging nine causes of action for (1)
private nuisance, (2) negligence, (3) breach of warranty of habitability, (4)
breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (5) breach of implied
covenant of quiet enjoyment, (6) violation of Civil Code section 1941, (7)
violation of Civil Code section 1924.4, (8) violation of Civil Code section
1950.5, and (9) intentional infliction of emotional distress.
TENTATIVE RULING
Moving
Parties’ motion to strike is DENIED.
LEGAL STANDARD
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
Moving
Parties move to strike Plaintiffs’ prayer for punitive damages on the grounds
that Plaintiffs have failed to plead sufficient facts to seek recovery of
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 may not be pleaded generally.” (Today’s IV, Inc. v. Los
Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th
1137, 1193.)
Moving Parties argue that Plaintiffs’ claims
for punitive damages are based on conclusory allegations. In opposition,
Plaintiffs cite Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 903 for
the proposition that their allegations are sufficient. In Stoiber, the
Court held that the plaintiffs allegations were sufficient to support a prayer
for exemplary damages where she “alleged that defendant had actual knowledge of defective
conditions in the premises including leaking sewage, deteriorated flooring,
falling ceiling, leaking roof, broken windows, and other unsafe and dangerous
conditions. She also alleged that defendants ‘In maintaining said nuisance, . .
. acted with full knowledge of the consequences thereof and the damage being
caused to plaintiff, and their conduct was willful, oppressive and malicious.’
” (Id. at p. 920.)
Here, Plaintiffs allege that the Property had
mold, cracking paint, deteriorating walls, and loose tiles, Defendants were
notified of the conditions, and Defendants intentionally failed to address the
issues. (FAC ¶¶ 33-41.) Plaintiffs allege
that they notified the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (“DPH”).
(Id. ¶43.) Plaintiffs allege DPH sent notices to
Defendants, but Defendants failed to remedy certain conditions. (Id. ¶¶ 44-46.) Plaintiffs allege DPH conducted an
inspection of the Property and an inspection report detailing the substandard
conditions were provided to Defendants. (Id. ¶¶ 48-53.) Plaintiffs
allege Defendants failed to take appropriate action. (Id. ¶ 55.)
Plaintiffs allege that they again notified DPH, DPH conducted an inspection and
provided notice to Defendants, but Defendants failed to remedy the conditions.
(Id. ¶¶ 58-68.)
Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged facts to support a
recovery of punitive damages based on Defendants’ repeated failures to remedy
the uninhabitable conditions present at the Property.
CONCLUSION
Moving
Parties’ motion to strike is DENIED.
Moving Party
to give notice.
Dated: April 10, 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