Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 21STCV26892, Date: 2022-08-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV26892    Hearing Date: August 19, 2022    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

            Defendants’ demurrer is SUSTAINED:

-         Defendants’ demurrer is SUSTAINED, WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to the sixth cause of action.

-         Defendants’ demurrer is SUSTAINED, WITH 10 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND as to causes of action 1-5.

On 7/21/2021, Plaintiff Molly Ann Woods (Plaintiff) filed suit against 1741 Granville Condominiums Homeowners Association, Rubin Properties, Inc., and Heather Miller (collectively, Defendants). On 4/4/2022, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (FAC) alleging: (1) breach of governing documents; (2) breach of fiduciary duty; (3) violation of the Stirling-Davis Act; (4) negligence; (5) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (6) declaratory relief.

            Now, Defendants demur to Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Factual Background

            This action is based on an incident on 1/29/2020 in which a pipe burst in the shared garage of the Condo Property which allegedly flooded Plaintiff’s master bedroom, bathroom, and closet. At the time, Plaintiff was renting the unit to a couple (the Gilbreaths). Plaintiff alleges that as a result of the damage from the burst pipe, the Gilbreaths moved out of the property, claiming constructive eviction due to a substantial violation of the implied warranty of habitability.

            Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were liable for the damages caused by the pipe burst, and failed to make the necessary repairs in a reasonable time. Plaintiff alleges that she attempted to cover some of the damages by paying for her own repairs, and that Defendants have failed to fully payout insurance proceeds to her to compensate her for those coverage payments.

Discussion

I.                   Breach of Governing Documents

Defendant HOA argues that Plaintiff cannot state a claim for breach of governing documents because it is not liable for any damages incurred as a result of a water intrusion from a common area pipe, and Plaintiff has not specified which provision of the CC&Rs the HOA failed to comply with. 

In support, Defendant HOA requested judicial notice of the following provisions from the CC&Rs:

Section 6.08 (Limitation of Liability) Neither the Declarant nor its agents or employees nor the Association, nor its Board of Directors (nor any member thereof), nor its officers (nor any of them), nor the Manager nor his staff shall not be liable for any failure to provide any service or perform any duty, function or responsibility designated, or provided in this Declaration or in any other Condominium Document to be performed by the same, or for injury or damage to persons or property caused by fire, explosion, the elements or by another Owner or person in the Project or resulting from electricity, water, rain, dust or sand which may leak or flow from outside any Unit or from any part of any Building or from any pipes, drains, conduits, appliances or equipment, or from any other place or cause unless caused by the bad faith of Declarant, the Association or its Board or Officers, or the Manager or his staff.

Section 10.05 (Owner Insurance) Each Owner, and not the Association, has the responsibility at his sole option to purchase, obtain, carry and maintain, at his sole expense, such casualty, liability, and/or property damage insurance covering the personal property, furniture, furnishings, and decorations within his Unit, any improvements added by an Owner, or otherwise protecting his Condominium and his own interests; provided, however, that all such additional insurance shall contain the same waivers of subrogation and "other insuranc provisions as described in Section 10.02 hereof.

Section 11.08 (Interior Damage) Restoration and repair of any damage to the personal property, furniture, furnishings and decorations contained within a Unit, or, any improvements which were added by the Owner to the Unit, shall be made by and at the individual expense of the Owner of that Unit and, in the event of a determination to rebuild after partial or total destruction, shall be completed as promptlyas practical and in a lawful and workmanlike manner.

Section 15.01 (Maintenance of Units and Patios and/or Balconies) Each Owner shall maintain, service and repair all plumbing fixtures, lighting fixtures, refrigerators, heating and air conditioning equipment, water heaters, dishwashers, disposals, ranges, ovens, washers and dryers, within his Unit and serving same, and all glass doors and windows enclosing such Unit, together with such parts and equipment as are reasonably necessary to comply with the provisions of this Section, and the cost and expense therefor shall be that of the Owner and not part of the Common Expenses. All maintenance repairs and/or replacement of interior surfaces of walls, floors, ceilings, doors, door frames and moldings within any Unit and all painting, papering, paneling, plastering, tiling and finishing of the interior surfaces thereof shall be at the sole cost and expense of the Owner of such Unit. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Section to the contrary, each Owner shall promptly upon the completion of any repairs or improvements (unless the same was performed by the Association in accordance with the provisions of this Declaration as part of the Common Expenses) notify the Association of the nature and extent of any such repairs or improvements made or caused to be made in his Unit, the cost of which exceeded Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00).

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that CC&R 6.03 obligates Defendant HOA to provide and maintain water and other necessary utility services, and thus “[u]nder CC&R 6.03, Defendants’ failure to maintain the parking garage where the pipe burst would constitute a violation.” However, Plaintiff’s claim is based on allegations that Defendant HOA was liable for the damages to her unit. As such, Plaintiff must identify language in the CC&Rs which creates this obligation on behalf of Defendant HOA. Plaintiff’s opposition does not include any argument as to why sections 6.08, 11.08 and 15.01 of the CC&Rs do not limit Defendant HOA’s liability. Section 6.08 expressly states that the HOA is not liable for any injury or damage to property caused by water “which may leak or flow from outside any Unit or from any part of any Building or from any pipes” unless caused by the bad faith of Declarant, the Association or its Board or Officers, or the Manager or his staff. Here, Plaintiff alleges that the pipe burst was a spontaneous act, and does not allege it was caused by any bad faith actions. As such, Plaintiff has still not identified any basis for the HOA’s liability. 

Plaintiff will be afforded an opportunity to set forth facts which could show Defendant HOA’s liability.  

            Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ demurrer is sustained, with 10 days leave to amend.

II.               Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Defendant HOA argues that Plaintiff cannot state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty because Plaintiff has not alleged facts which could show it was liable for any of the damages incurred by Plaintiff. Defendants Rubin Properties and Miller argue that Plaintiff cannot state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against them because management companies hired by the HOA do not owe a fiduciary duty by virtue of that relationship. 

            As set forth above, the Court concluded that Plaintiff has not set forth sufficient facts which could show that Defendant HOA breached any obligation to Plaintiff.

In response to Rubin Properties and Miller’s argument, Plaintiff argued in opposition: “Although there might not be any caselaw holding a management company hired by the HOA owing a fiduciary duty to the members of the HOA, because Defendants Rubin and Miller were acting as HOA’s agents they owed Plaintiff the same fiduciary duties as HOA would owe Plaintiff” (1, 9-11.) Plaintiff offers no support for this contention, and does not advance any argument which could show that Miller, as an individual, could owe Plaintiff a fiduciary duty.

Leave will be afforded for Plaintiff to set forth facts which could show Defendant HOA’s liability, and to set forth substantive argument that Defendants Rubin Properties and Miller owed a fiduciary duty by virtue of a principal/agent relationship with the HOA.

Based on foregoing, Defendants’ demurrer is sustained, with 10 days leave to amend.  

III.            Violation of the Stirling-Davis Act

Defendant HOA argues that Plaintiff cannot state a claim for violation of the Stirling-Davis Act because Plaintiff has not alleged any facts which could show a causal connection between the alleged failure to maintain the common area and Plaintiff’s alleged damages.

Plaintiff alleges that the HOA has violated Civ. Code § 4775, which states:

(a) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (3), unless otherwise provided in the declaration of a common interest development, the association is responsible for repairing, replacing, and maintaining the common area.

(2) Unless otherwise provided in the declaration of a common interest development, the owner of each separate interest is responsible for repairing, replacing, and maintaining that separate interest.

(3) Unless otherwise provided in the declaration of a common interest development, the owner of each separate interest is responsible for maintaining the exclusive use common area appurtenant to that separate interest and the association is responsible for repairing and replacing the exclusive use common area. (b) The costs of temporary relocation during the repair and maintenance of the areas within the responsibility of the association shall be borne by the owner of the separate interest affected. (c) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2017.        

Plaintiff further alleges that “PLAINTIFF was harmed by DEFENDANT HOA and DEFENDANT RUBIN’s failure to compensate her for damages caused by the burst pipe.” (FAC ¶ 24.)

            However, as set forth above, Plaintiff has not set forth sufficient facts to show the HOA had liability to Plaintiff for damages incurred as a result of water intrusion from a common area pipe.

Based on foregoing, Defendants’ demurrer is sustained, with 10 days leave to amend. 

IV.            Negligence

Defendant HOA argues that Plaintiff cannot state a claim for negligence against it because, as set forth above, it was not liable for the damages incurred by Plaintiff. Defendants Rubin Properties and Miller argue that Plaintiff cannot state a claim for negligence against them because they did not owe any direct duty to Plaintiff. 

As set forth above, Plaintiff has not set forth sufficient facts to show the HOA had liability to Plaintiff for damages incurred as a result of water intrusion from a common area pipe. As such, Plaintiff has necessarily not set forth facts which could show Rubin Properties or Miller are liable as agents of the HOA.

Based on foregoing, Defendants’ demurrer is sustained, with 10 days leave to amend. 

V.                Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

Defendants argue that Plaintiff cannot state a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing because Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim fails.

As set forth above, Plaintiff has not set forth sufficient facts to show the HOA breached any obligation to Plaintiff.

Based on foregoing, Defendants’ demurrer is sustained, with 10 days leave to amend. 

VI.            Declaratory Relief

Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s declaratory relief cause of action fails because Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, not a declaration of rights.

In opposition, Plaintiff merely argues that she wants to ensure that Defendant HOA enforces its CC&Rs and bylaws. However, Plaintiff’s remaining causes of action already seek to enforce the CC&Rs, rendering this cause of action duplicative. 

Based on foregoing, Defendants’ demurrer is sustained, without leave to amend.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  August    , 2022

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. 

            Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk.  The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.