Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 23BBCV01855, Date: 2024-06-28 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23BBCV01855 Hearing Date: June 28, 2024 Dept: NCB
North
Central District
|
mishel dir
ghazarian, Plaintiff, v. southern california gas company, Defendant. |
Case
No.: 23BBCV01855 Trial
Date: June 28, 2024 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: Motion to strike |
BACKGROUND
A.
Allegations
Plaintiff Mishel Dir Ghazarian
(“Plaintiff”) alleges that on August 19, 2020, he made a request to Defendant
Southern California Gas Company (“SoCal Gas”) for relocation of the gas meter
at the property located at 2109 Manning Street, Burbank, CA 91505. Plaintiff alleges that SoCal Gas prepared an
Agreement for Collectible Work, outlining the work to be done and the obligations
of the parties. Per the agreement, SoCal
Gas was to relocate the gas meter and Plaintiff was responsible for digging the
required trench for the work to be completed.
Plaintiff alleges that he was required to pay SoCal Gas a fee of $814.40
for the work. Plaintiff alleges that on
September 30, 2020, he signed the agreement and paid the fee. Plaintiff alleges that he was told the
relocation would take approximately 4-6 months.
Plaintiff alleges that he waited for SoCal Gas to schedule a field visit
and he repeatedly followed up to obtain updates, but did not receive a concrete
response as to the status of the work to be completed. Plaintiff alleges 10 months later in July
2021, he was advised that work would begin.
Plaintiff alleges that SoCal Gas disconnected the gas service at the
property and stated they would return the next day to complete the job. Plaintiff alleges that SoCal Gas did not
return to the property in July 2021 but the gas was still disconnected. Plaintiff received an email on January 27,
2023 from Greg Garcia, who advised that work would begin immediately. Plaintiff alleges that Greg Garcia scheduled
a field visit for March 13, 2023 and completed the relocation of the gas meter
on March 14, 2023. Plaintiff alleges
that it took SoCal Gas nearly 2.5 years to complete the relocation of the gas
meter, despite the 4-6 months promised in the agreement.
The complaint, filed August 11, 2023,
alleges causes of action for: (1) negligence and (2) breach of contract.
On February 23, 2024, Plaintiff
named Arizona Pipeline Co. (“APC”) as Doe 1.
On May 14, 2024, Plaintiff dismissed
the 2nd cause of action for breach of contract against APC
only.
B.
Motion on Calendar
On May 9, 2024, APC filed a motion to
strike portions of the complaint.
On June 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed an
opposition brief.
On June 18, 2024, APC filed a reply brief.
DISCUSSION
APC moves to strike the allegations for emotional distress damages from the
complaint at paragraphs 25, 31, and 40, and for general damages in the prayer
for relief at page 8, line 1.
APC argues that this action involves a claim solely for property damage
related to the relocation of a gas meter and that emotional distress and
general damages are improper. (Cooper v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 1008,
1012 [“No California
case has allowed recovery for emotional distress arising solely out of property
damage, absent a threshold showing of some preexisting relationship or
intentional tort. This case involves no preexisting relationship between the
parties. Thus, we do not feel it appropriate to extend recovery for emotional
distress here.”].) APC argues
that the parties only had a contractual relationship, where Defendants’
allegedly tortious conduct only resulted in economic injury to Plaintiff.
In
opposition, Plaintiff argues that this action is not solely an action for
property damage, but for negligence.
(The complaint alleges a breach of contract cause of action against
SoCal Gas and a negligence cause of action against SoCal Gas and APC.) Plaintiff argues that his allegations in
paragraphs 28-31 adequately allege the elements of duty, breach, causation, and
damages against APC, such that he may pursue a claim for negligence and the
negligent causing of emotional distress against APC.
As
currently alleged, and taking the allegations as true at the pleading stage, the
complaint alleges more than mere property damage against APC. In the negligence cause of action, Plaintiff
alleges that Defendants owed him a duty to a relocate the gas meter and
coordinate the completion of the work pursuant to relevant regulations and
industry standards, such as not to harm individual persons, private property,
and/or the comfortable use and enjoyment of the property. (Compl., ¶¶28-29.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants breached
their duty by: “(a) failing to complete work orders for
relocation of gas meters in a reasonable timeframe, (b) failing to properly
manage and coordinate work to be completed consisted with industry standards
and regulations, and (c) failing to have adequate and appropriate staff to
service the public and complete work orders timely, adequately, and
promptly.” (Id., ¶30.) Plaintiff alleges damages including loss of
use, loss of rent and profit, and emotional distress. (Id., ¶31.) At this time, the Court will find that the
allegations for emotional distress do not result solely out of negligent injury
to the property, such that Plaintiff may pursue emotional distress and general
damages in connection with the negligence cause of action. Whether Plaintiff can ultimately prove that
he is entitled to emotional distress damages and whether he indeed suffered
emotional distress will have to be considered beyond the pleading stage.
The
motion to strike is denied.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Defendant Arizona Pipeline
Co.’s motion to strike is denied. Defendant is ordered to answer.
Defendant shall provide
notice of this order.
DATED:
June 28, 2024 ___________________________
John
Kralik
Judge
of the Superior Court