Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 22STCV35390, Date: 2023-09-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV35390    Hearing Date: September 5, 2023    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

            Defendant’s demurrer is OVERRULED as to the fourth cause of action, but SUSTAINED, WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND, as to the fifth cause of action.

            Defendant’s motion to strike is DENIED. 

            On 11/4/2022, Plaintiffs Erin Weiler and Paul Siman (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed suit against David Frandzel, an individual and as trustee of the D Lifetime Heritage T Frandzel and Blum M Lifetime Heritage Trust (collectively, Defendant). On 4/14/2023, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint (FAC), alleging: (1) breach of implied warranty of habitability; (2) tortious breach of implied warranty of habitability; (3) negligence; (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED); (5) violation of Unlawful Business and Professions Code section 17200; (7) violation of Los Angeles County Code of Ordinances section 8.52.1.130(B); and (8) violation of Los Angeles Municipal Code Article 5.3.

            Now, Defendant demurs to the fourth and fifth causes of action. Defendant also moves to strike portions of the FAC.

Discussion

            Defendant argues that Plaintiffs cannot state a claim for IIED because the conduct alleged doesn’t rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct. Defendant argues that Plaintiffs cannot state a claim for private nuisance because it is redundant of the negligence cause of action.

            After review, the Court disagrees with the former contention (the IIED claim), but agrees with the latter (the private nuisance claim).

            As for IIED, Plaintiffs allege that they were subjected to persistent pest issues, improper entry into their unit by Defendant, a lack of safety and security at the Property, and other dangerous conditions. (FAC ¶ 15.) Plaintiffs allege that they informed Defendant of these conditions, and they were not resolved. For example, Plaintiffs allege that:

…two separate ceiling collapses occurred at the Subject Property. The first, in WEILER’s unit, occurred in or around August 30, 2021 when an unlicensed workman fell through the ceiling of the living room of said unit. This ceiling collapse was precipitated by WEILER noticing and complaining about staining that began appearing on her living room ceiling in July of 2021. In response to WEILER’s complaints, FRANDZEL stated “Lol” and “that is weird” in text message correspondence. Despite requirements pursuant to the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance and Los Angeles Municipal Code, Defendants failed to obtain permits for the repairs that were commenced following the ceiling collapse. Additionally, inspectors from the City of Los Angeles were not informed of this event by Defendants, raising concerns as to the safety of repairs and qualifications of individuals tasked to do said repairs. Due to the above, a hole was left in the ceiling of WEILER’s living room for multiple months following the improper, unpermitted, and unsupervised repairs.

            (FAC ¶ 13.)

            Accepted as true, these allegations are sufficient at the pleading stage to state a claim for IIED. Whether or not Defendants’ conduct, in fact, rises to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct, or whether or not Plaintiffs, in fact, suffered severe emotional distress as a result of this conduct, are factual determinations not properly decided at this stage.

However, as for the private nuisance claim, California does not impose liability for nuisance where the landlord was not an active participant in causing the alleged damages. (Resolution Trust Corp. v. Rossmoor Corp. (1995) 34 Cal.App. 4th 93, 100.) Moreover, there can be no separate claim for nuisance, when the claim relies on the same facts of lack of due care to support a negligence claim. (Melton v. Boustred (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 521, 542; El Escorial Owners' Assn. v. DLC Plastering, Inc. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1337.)

In El Escorial, supra, a multiparty construction defect case, the court stated that "the factual allegations incorporated into the nuisance cause of action involved negligence and defective workmanship. (Id. at p. 1349). "Where negligence and nuisance causes of action rely on the same facts about lack of due care, the nuisance is a negligence claim." (Ibid.) The court opined that "[t]he trial court reasonably found that Escorial's nuisance cause of action was merely a clone of the first cause of action using a different label.” (Ibid.)

Here, similarly, Plaintiff’s negligence and private nuisance claims are based on the same underlying allegations, i.e., that Defendant allowed the Property to be in substandard condition and failed to make repairs. As such, the Court agrees that the private nuisance claim is redundant. (In El Escorial, supra, 154 Cal.App. at p. 1349.) Moreover, Plaintiffs do not allege facts which could how that Defendant actively created the conditions at the Property. (Resolution Trust Corp., supra, 34 Cal.App.4^th at p. 100.)

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s demur is overruled as to the IIED cause of action, but sustained, without leave to amend, as to the private nuisance cause of action.

Motion to Strike  

            Defendant moves to strike all of Plaintiffs’ allegations related to their claim for punitive damages.

The adequacy of a claim for punitive damages is properly tested by a motion to strike. (Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 164.) Civil Code section 3294, subdivision (a) authorizes the recovery of punitive damages where the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, express or implied. 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. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(1).) Oppression is despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights. (Id., subd. (c)(2).) Fraud means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the party of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury. (Id., subd. (c)(3).) 

As set forth above, the Court overruled Defendant’s demur to the IIED cause of action. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant knowingly allowed dangerous conditions to exist at the property, including two ceiling collapse events and pest infestations. Accepted as true at the pleading stage, is sufficient to show that Defendant engaged in despicable conduct with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(1).)

            Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to strike is denied.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  September    , 2023

   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.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.