Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 22BBCV00350, Date: 2022-10-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22BBCV00350    Hearing Date: October 28, 2022    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiff Bryan Cortez (“Plaintiff”) alleges that he is a resident and tenant of residential property located at 11255 Camarillo St., North Hollywood, CA 91602.  Plaintiff alleges that he took possession of the premises by way of a written lease agreement in 2020.  He alleges that he was exposed to substandard conditions, such as leaking plumbing, accumulation of water, insufficient buttresses, mold/rot, lack of proper insulation, nonfunctioning heat, intentional destruction of property, and retaliation.  (Compl., ¶12.)  Plaintiff alleges that he notified Defendant 11255 Camarillo Associates, LLC (“Defendant”, owner of the property) of water permeating the property in February 2022 and in March 2022, plumbers/contractors removed the wall, pipes, ceiling, and fixtures without replacement.  Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care in response to the flood, forcing Plaintiff to vacate the property.  Plaintiff alleges that he was without a wall, ceiling, functioning plumbing, and a useable bathroom for months.

            The complaint, filed May 18, 2022, alleges causes of action for: (1) tortious breach of warranty of habitability; (2) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment; (3) nuisance; (4) negligence; and (5) negligent hiring or supervision.

B.     Motion on Calendar

On July 6, 2022, Defendant filed a motion to strike portions of the complaint.

On September 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed an opposition brief to the motion.  

DISCUSSION

Defendant moves to strike all references to punitive damages in the complaint and page 8 (line 27) to page 9 (line 3) regarding punitive damages.  The allegations on pages 8 and 9 are made in connection with paragraph 68, which is alleged under the 5^th cause of action for negligent hiring and supervision.  Based on the Court’s review of the complaint, it appears that Plaintiff seeks punitive damages with respect to the 4^th cause of action for negligence (paragraph 60) and the 5^th cause of action for negligent hiring and supervision (paragraph 68).

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. 

In the allegations for punitive damages, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s actions constituted “malice, oppression, or fraud under California Civil Code Section 3294, thereby entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages as to Defendants, in an amount to punish Defendants and/or to set an example. Defendant’s conduct constituted ‘malice’ and ‘oppression’ in that Defendants intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the safety of Plaintiff. [sic]”  (Compl., ¶¶60, 68.)  In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to keep the property reasonably safe, failed to follow local laws and ordinances, failed to exercise reasonable care and comply with its duties, and breached its duties by hiring people who enter contracts in bad faith to illegal gain information, failing to use reasonable diligence in hiring persons, and violating a number of ordinances/statutes.  (Id., ¶¶56, 65.)

At this time, the allegations regarding punitive damages are conclusory and fail to show what actions by Defendant amount to malice or oppression. 

Further, Plaintiff is seeking punitive damages in connection with negligence causes of action.  “Mere negligence, even gross negligence, is not sufficient to justify an award of punitive damages.”  (Egan v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 809, 832 [Internal quotation marks omitted].)  While a nonintentional tort that has the characteristic of an intentional tort may be the basis of a punitive damages award, there must be a showing of malice or intentionality under Civil Code, § 3294 or that defendant’s conduct was of a severe or shocking character that warrants the same treatment as that accorded to willful/intentional misconduct.  (Nolin v. National Convenience Stores, Inc. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 279, 286.)  Here, at most the conduct alleged arises to negligence, but Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing that Defendant’s conduct was severe to rise to the level of treatment for intentional conduct.

Defendant cites to McDonell v. American Trust, Co. (1955) 130 Cal.App.2d 296, arguing that Plaintiff lacks facts showing malice to support punitive damages.  The Court of Appeal summarized the plaintiff’s allegations in support of punitive damages as follows in McDonell:

Punitive Damages. “In wilfully failing to repair” said defective condition of the premises with reference to the roof and roof drains “after having received due notice of the dangerous condition thereof,” and “having knowledge of the fact that said defective conditions could cause damage and injury to the property and persons of the tenants,” defendants were “guilty of wilful misconduct in their wilful and wanton neglect for the safety and health of the plaintiffs,” and were also “guilty of a conscious disregard to the persons, rights and property of the plaintiffs by continually failing and refusing to repair the defective conditions as aforesaid,” and Irene demands punitive damages in the sum of $1,500.

(McDonell, supra, 130 Cal.App.2d at 298-299.)  The Court of Appeal stated:

The gist of the first part of the count (that which deals with actual damages) is that defendant, aware of the defective condition of the roof and drains and knowing they could cause damage, refused to repair them. Those facts do not spell an intentional tort (a conscious, deliberate intent to injure the plaintiffs) or conduct so recklessly disregardful of the rights of others (sometimes characterized as wanton or wilful misconduct) as would show the “malice” in fact which the statute (Civ. Code, § 3294) requires as a predicate for punitive in addition to actual damages. …

Calling this a “wilful” failure to repair was not the same as saying defendant acted with a wrongful personal intent to injure or in reckless disregard of the rights of others. Nor did the words “reckless and wilful acts” add anything of significance, limited as they are by the words “as hereinabove particularly alleged.” We conclude that the portion of the second count which deals with actual damages falls short of pleading a basis for punitive damages. At the very most, it sounds in negligence.

(Id. at 300.) 

The complaint lacks facts in support of punitive damages.  At best, the allegations that Defendant acted with malice or oppression are conclusory.  As such, further facts supporting punitive damages, alleged with the requisite specificity, should be provided upon amendment.    

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            The motion to strike the allegations for punitive damages in the complaint is granted with 20 days leave to amend.

            Defendant shall provide notice of this order.