Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 21BBCV01050, Date: 2022-09-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21BBCV01050    Hearing Date: September 16, 2022    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiffs Brian Rios and Melissa Quezada reside at 370 W. Alameda Ave #206, Burbank, CA 91506.  Plaintiffs allege they took possession by written lease in June 2019.  They allege that Defendant PRC Management Services, Inc. (“Defendant”) is the contracting party and an agent for the owner of the property.  Plaintiffs allege that at the time Defendant led Plaintiffs into the lease, it knew of the hazardous and substandard condition on the property. 

The first amended complaint (“FAC”), filed June 15, 2022, alleges causes of action for: (1) tortious breach of warranty of habitability; (2) breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment; (3) nuisance; (4) professional negligence; (5) negligence; and (6) breach of contract.

B.     Motion on Calendar

On August 1, 2022, Defendant filed a motion to strike portions of the FAC.

The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief.

DISCUSSION

Defendant moves to strike portions of the FAC, including: (1) “intentionally disregarded” at paragraph 30; (2) paragraphs 16, 17, 30, and 31 in their entirety; (3) “acted with malice and oppressed the Plaintiffs through their reckless misconduct” at paragraph 61; (4) Item 3 in the Prayer for Relief; (5) any other references to intentional/willful conduct; and (6) any other references to punitive/exemplary damages.

A complaint including a request for punitive damages must include allegations showing that the plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages.  (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.)  A claim for punitive damages cannot be pleaded generally and allegations that a defendant acted "with oppression, fraud and malice" toward plaintiff are insufficient legal conclusions to show that the plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages.  (Brousseau v. Jarrett (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 864, 872.)  Specific factual allegations are required to support a claim for punitive damages.  (Id.)

Civil Code § 3294 authorizes a plaintiff to obtain an award of punitive damages when there is clear and convincing evidence that the defendant engaged in malice, oppression, or fraud.  Section 3294(c) defines the terms in the following manner:

(1)   "Malice" means 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.

(2)   "Oppression" means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights.

(3)   "Fraud" 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. 

The Court previously ruled on Defendant’s motion to strike portions of the initial complaint on May 27, 2022, granting the motion to strike with leave to amend.  The Court found that the allegations failed to rise to the level of specificity warranting punitive damages.  

In the FAC, Plaintiffs allege that they made written complaints to Defendants about the breaches of the minimum California State requirements (i.e., sanitary premises, ventilation, plumbing, electrical wiring, and filth) and what they believed to be illegal work and unpermitted conditions at the property, but Defendants ignored Plaintiffs.  (FAC, ¶¶14-16.)  Plaintiffs allege they only learned of the illegal nature of the unit once code enforcement cited Defendants.  (Id., ¶17.)  Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are experienced property owners/managers and that they were aware of illegal conditions, yet they ignored Plaintiffs and retaliated against Plaintiffs through passive aggressive and unprofessional communication and/or disregard.  (Id., ¶¶18-19.)  Plaintiffs allege they suffered bites from insects and mites in November 2021 and discovered there was dead rats in the vents, they made complaints to Defendants about smells in May 2022, and in May 2022, Defendants sent an HVAC technician who could not access the entirety of the unit but had found rat urine/feces.  (Id., ¶¶20-23.)  Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants placed a deodorizer on the property and Plaintiffs’ children thereafter required medical treatment due to caustic conditions and chemicals.  (Id., ¶¶24-25.)  Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to abate the fly and inspect problem, but provided Plaintiffs with a fly swatter.  (Id., ¶26.) 

Again, as currently worded, the allegations fail to allege specific facts showing that punitive damages are appropriate for this action.  While Plaintiffs have included additional allegations of the alleged violations of habitability statutes and illegal/unpermitted conditions at the property, Plaintiffs fail to allege specific facts regarding when they provided notice to Defendant, who they informed of Defendant corporation, how Defendant failed to take timely action, and how and why they specifically targeted the Plaintiffs  As currently alleged, the allegations rise to the level of an ordinary habitability action and does not yet allege facts that would permit punitive damages.  The wiser course might be to move to amend later if particular information supporting a claim for punitive damages is developed in discovery.

            Thus, the motion to strike is granted with leave to amend.  The Court will allow Plaintiff a final opportunity to amend the pleadings to allege additional, specific facts showing that Defendant acted with malice, oppression, and/or fraud.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant’s motion to strike the allegations for punitive damages from the first amended complaint is granted with 20 days leave to amend. 

Defendant shall give notice of this order.