Judge Jon R. Takasugi, Case Number: 23STCV03677, Date: 2023-08-07 Tentative Ruling

On 2/21/2023, Plaintiff Kristina Marie Dove (Plaintiff) filed suit against 1111 Sunset, LLC, Linear City Development, LLC, and Yuval Bar-Zemer (collectively, Defendants), 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) private nuisance; and (6) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200.

Defendant moves to strike all of Plaintiff’s allegations related to its 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).)

Here, Plaintiff asserts claims for IIED, violation of the UCL, and breaches of the warranty of habitability[1], and Defendant has not demurred to these claims as being inadequately supported at the pleading stage. While Plaintiff’s negligence claim clearly cannot support a prayer for punitive damages, Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant knowingly allowed water leaks and toxigenic mold to be maintained at the property, 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).)

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.

[1] In their motion, Defendant argue that habitability claims sound in contract and thus punitive damages are not available. Tellingly, the only case cited in support of this position is a Lemon Law case, not a habitability case. Tenants are not precluded from suing in tort for damages resulting from an alleged breach of the warranty of habitability. (See e.g. Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 903.)