Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

william yao, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vita bella homeowners association, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 23BBCV02018

Hearing Date: April 12, 2024

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

demurrers

BACKGROUND

A. Allegations

Plaintiffs William Yao and Ailin Yao (“Plaintiffs”) allege that Mr. Yao is a quadriplegic who relies on a wheelchair for mobility and his wife, Mrs. Yao, is his caretaker. Plaintiffs allege that in June 2018, they purchased unit 3 in the Vita Bella complex located at 12050 Geurin Street in Studio City. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Vita Bella Homeowners Association (“VB HOA”) and Defendant Coro Community Management and Consulting, LLC (“CCMC”) own, operate, and/or manage the housing and related facilities, services, and support provided by and through Vita Bella.

Plaintiffs allege that in June 2018, they applied to install wood flooring in the unit to accommodate Mr. Yao’s wheelchair. They allege that they spoke with then-president of the VB HOA Board Jennie Brandt, who directed them to contact CCMC. CCMC’s executive director Russell Benjamin informed Mrs. Yao that underlayment of the flooring would need to be approved and directed Plaintiffs to provide specifications to contractor LA Acoustic Services (“LAAS”). In July 2018, demolition and installation of the hardwood flooring (overseen by Ms. Brandt) was underway and installation of the hardwood flooring was completed on August 2, 2018. Plaintiffs allege that they began preparing to move into their unit.

Plaintiffs allege that in order for Mr. Yao to use the parking facilities at the complex, he needed a parking space that was configured for use by a person with a disability who uses a wheelchair. They allege that the only available spot was a guest parking spot, but this was not large enough to fit Plaintiffs’ SUV. They allege that because the parking space was insufficient to accommodate Mr. Yao’s disability, they were unable to move into the unit as planned. Plaintiffs allege that the CC&Rs prohibited Plaintiffs from leasing their unit for 8 months following the close of escrow, so the unit remained vacant until July 2019, and then their daughter Olivia Yao moved into the unit from July 2019 to May 2021.

Plaintiffs allege that they emailed Gail Bank of the HOA Board about wheelchair accessible parking spaces on July 15, 2020, but were informed that the handicapped space belonged to another unit owner. Mr. Yao opened a complaint with the Department of Fair Housing and Employment on September 11, 2020, alleging that Defendants failed to reasonably accommodate his request for accessible parking, but the DFEH issued a “No Cause Determination” on July 22, 2021. Mr. Yao then appealed the decision and on September 1, 2021, the DFEH upheld its determination.

In July 2021, Plaintiffs decided to put up their unit for sale. On July 12, 2021, Victor Sahn on behalf of the HOA contacted Plaintiffs’ listing agent to inform him that the unit was in violation of the CC&Rs because of the hardwood flooring and that Plaintiffs’ daughters had been living in the unit instead of Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs allege that from July 2021 to January 5, 2022, they lost offers from 3 separate buyers due to Defendants’ demand to disclose their ongoing dispute with the HOA and non-compliance with the CC&Rs. In January 2022, they received and accepted their fourth offer, which Defendants again obstructed.

The first amended complaint (“FAC”), filed January 29, 2024, alleges causes of action for: (1) the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1982, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.; (2) California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Gov’t Code, § 12955 et seq.; (3) California Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civ. Code, § 51 et seq.; (4) California Disabled Persons Act, Civ. Code, § 54.1 et seq.; and (5) negligence, Civ. Code, § 1714.

B. Motions on Calendar

On February 27, 2024, Coro Community Management and Consulting, LLC (“CCMC”) filed a demurrer to the 3^rd and 4^th causes of action in the FAC. CCMC concurrently filed a motion to strike portions of the FAC. On April 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed opposition briefs. On April 5, 2024, CCMC filed reply briefs.

On February 27, 2024, Vita Bella Homeowners Association (“VB HOA”) filed a demurrer to the 4^th cause of action in the FAC. VB HOA concurrently filed a motion to strike portions of the FAC. On April 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed opposition briefs. On April 5, 2024, VB HOA filed reply briefs.

DISCUSSION RE CCMC’S DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE

A. Request for Judicial Notice

CCMC requests that the Court take judicial notice of Plaintiffs’ DFEH complaint dated May 25, 2021 and DFEH’s Notice of Case Closure dated August 2, 2021. The request is granted. (Evid. Code, § 452(c).)

Plaintiffs request judicial notice of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development dated May 14, 2021, the DFEH’s No Cause Determination Letter dated July 22, 2021, and the DFEH’s letter re: response to appeal dated September 1, 2021. The request is granted. (Evid. Code, § 452(c).)

B. Merits of the Demurrer

CCMC demurs to the 3^rd and 4^th causes of action in the FAC, arguing that they fail to state sufficient facts and they are each duplicative of the other cause of action.

CCMC argues that the 3^rd cause of action for California Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civ. Code, § 51 et seq. and the 4^th cause of action for California Disabled Persons Act, Civ. Code, § 54.1 et seq. are vague, ambiguous, and uncertain as each is duplicative of the other and are premise upon and pled under the same primary right. CCMC argues that Plaintiff cannot seek damages under both the Unruh Act and the Disabled Persons Act. CCMC relies on Civil Code, § 54.3(c) under the Disabled Persons Act, “A person may not be held liable for damages pursuant to both this section and Section 52 [the Unruh Act] for the same act or failure to act.”

In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that they are not required to make an election of remedies until prior to the entry of judgment and that they are allowed to plead alternate causes of action with inconsistent remedies. (Ram's Gate Winery, LLC v. Roche (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1071, 1087 [“Moreover, as pointed out by Ram's Gate, any obligation it might have to elect one of two inconsistent remedies would not arise prior to trial; an election of remedies is required only after a decision on the merits and prior to entry of judgment.”].) Plaintiffs appear to acknowledge in their opposition brief that relief under both Acts is not possible, but that they have accounted for this in the FAC’s prayer for damages by alleging: “While Plaintiff may prevail on each act individually, Plaintiff only seeks monetary recovery under whichever act results in the greatest damages, to be determined at trial….” (FAC, Prayer for Damages, ¶1.)

Here, the causes of action are not duplicative as asserted by CCMC. The 3^rd and 4^th causes of action assert different types of claims based on different Acts. At this time, both causes of action may be asserted, but Plaintiff will need to elect a remedy under one of these causes of action prior to the entry of judgment. CCMC’s demurrer to the 3^rd and 4^th causes of action in the FAC is overruled.

C. Merits of the Motion to Strike

CCMC moves to strike time-barred claims and allegations for punitive damages from the FAC at paragraphs 96, 101.b, 101.d, 102 (lines 6-9), 103 (lines 11-15), 114.b, 114.c, 114.f, 124, 130, and the prayer for damages at item 2.

First, CCMC argues that contrary to Plaintiffs’ allegations that they filed their DFEH complaint on September 21, 2020 and DFEH closed their complaint on July 22, 2021, the judicially noticeable documents show that Plaintiffs filed their claim on May 25, 2021 and DFEH closed the complaint on August 2, 2021. (FAC, ¶¶56-57, CCMC RJN Exs. 1-2.) CCMC argues that Plaintiffs’ claims regarding the alleged parking accommodations are barred by the relevant statute of limitations. CCMC argues that the factual misrepresentations should be stricken as they materially affect the pleadings. In opposition, Plaintiffs provide judicially noticeable documents showing that they received a letter dated July 22, 2021 from DFEH entitled “Closure Determination and Request for Additional Information” and a letter dated September 1, 2021 regarding DFEH’s response to their appeal. (Pl.’s RJN, Exs. B-C.) For clarity of the allegations, the Court will grant the motion to strike the allegations regarding the dates of the DFEH complaint so that Plaintiffs can have leave to amend and reallege more clearly the dates of all the communications sent and received by and between Plaintiffs and DFEH. Plaintiffs may allege additional facts to show that their claims fall within the statute of limitations period.

Third, CCM argues that Plaintiff’s punitive damages allegations are conclusory elemental pleadings. 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 FAC, Plaintiffs allege that “[t]he unlawful practices of the Defendants as described herein were and are wanton, willful, malicious, fraudulent, or oppressive; were intended to cause injury to Plaintiff; and/or were done in conscious, callous, reckless, or blatant disregard for the federally protected rights of Plaintiff, entitling him to punitive and treble damages.” (FAC, ¶96; see prayer for damages at ¶2.) The allegations regarding punitive damages are general and are not alleged with the requisite particularity at this time. The motion to strike the allegations for punitive damages is granted with leave to amend.

DISCUSSION RE VB HOA’S DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE

A. Request for Judicial Notice

VB HOA requests that the Court take judicial notice of Plaintiffs’ DFEH complaint dated May 25, 2021 and DFEH’s Notice of Case Closure dated August 2, 2021. The request is granted. (Evid. Code, § 452(c).)

B. Merits of the Demurrer

VB HOA demurs to the 4^th cause of action in the FAC, arguing that is vague, ambiguous, and uncertain as it is duplicative of the 3^rd cause of action, and it fails to allege sufficient facts.

For the same reasons discussed above regarding CCMC’s demurrer, VB HOA’s demurrer is overruled.

C. Merits of the Motion to Strike

VB HOA moves to strike time-barred claims and allegations for punitive damages from the FAC at paragraphs 96, 101.b, 101.d, 102 (lines 6-9), 103 (lines 11-15), 114.b, 114.c, 114.f, 124, 130, and the prayer for damages at item 2.

For the same reasons discussed above regarding CCMC’s motion to strike, VB HOA’s motion to strike is granted with leave to amend.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant Coro Community Management and Consulting, LLC’s demurrer to the 3^rd and 4^th causes of action is overruled. The motion to strike is granted with 20 days leave to amend.

Defendant Vita Bella Homeowners Association’s demurrer to the 3^rd and cause of action is overruled. The motion to strike is granted with 20 days leave to amend.

Each party shall provide notice of their respective order.

DATED: April 12, 2024 ___________________________

John Kralik

Judge of the Superior Court