Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 23STCV19908, Date: 2024-02-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV19908 Hearing Date: February 5, 2024 Dept: 17
County of Los
Angeles
DEPARTMENT 17
TENTATIVE RULING
|
LATANYA BAUTISTA
vs. COSTCO WHOLESALE, et al. |
Case
No.: 23STCV19908 Hearing Date: January 8, 2024 |
Defendant
Costco’s demurrer is SUSTAINED, WITH 15 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND. Defendant Costco’s
motion to strike is GRANTED.
On
8/21/2023, Plaintiff Latanya Bautista (Plaintiff) filed suit against Costco
Wholesale and Jose’s LLC, alleging: (1) strict products liability; (2) breach
of the implied warranty of merchantability; (3) breach of implied warranty of
fitness; (4) negligence; and (5) property damage.
Now,
Defendant Costco (Defendant) demurs to the fourth cause of action. Defendant
also moves to strike portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
Factual Background
Plaintiff’s
claim arises out of a refrigerator that she allegedly purchased from Costco,
and which was installed by Defendant Jose, LLC. The refrigerator allegedly
began to leak and caused damage to Plaintiff’s flooring.
Discussion
Defendant
argues that Plaintiff’s fourth cause of action must be struck because it
contains no substantive allegations and because it is duplicative.
After
review, the Court agrees.
As
a preliminary matter, Plaintiff’s fourth cause of action contains no
substantive allegations. Instead, it is composed entirely of re-incorporated
allegations from the preceding paragraphs. (Complaint ¶ 52.) As such, the
fourth cause of action contains no additional facts upon which a claim against
Costco could be made.
Second,
Plaintiff’s other claims are for products liability, warranty theories of
liability, and property damage. Property damage is not a recognized cause of
action, and it is uncertain whether or not the negligence arises out of this
claim or if is related to the products liability/warranty claims. To the extent
it is based on warranty/products liability, the negligence claim would be
duplicative of that.
Plaintiff
is representing herself in pro per. A self-represented litigant must follow the
same rules of procedure, including all statutory standards for pleadings and
motions. (See Kabbe v. Miller (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 93, 98.) To hold
otherwise “would be to give pro per litigants (and particularly vexatious
litigants representing themselves) an unfair advantage over parties represented
by attorneys.” (Kobayashi v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 536,
543.)
Plaintiff
must allege sufficient facts which clarify the basis of her negligence claim
and which could show that it is not duplicative of her other causes of action.
Based
on the foregoing, Defendant’s demurrer is sustained, with 15 days leave to
amend.
Motion to Strike
Defendant
argues that Plaintiff cannot maintain a claim for mental or emotional injuries,
punitive damages, or attorney fees here.
After
review, the Court agrees.
As
for emotional damages, Plaintiff claims that, as a result of the property
damage, she has suffered stress and depression, requiring medical treatment. (Complaint,
¶¶ 25, 42, 51, and 75.) However, “in the absence of physical injury, the courts
have never allowed recovery of damages for emotional distress arising solely
from property damage or economic injury to the plaintiff.” (Butler-Rupp v.
Lourdeaux (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1220, 1228.) (See also 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”].) Here, Plaintiff alleges she purchased a defective refrigerator and
that it caused damage to her flooring. As such, she has only alleged economic
injury and property damage.
As
for attorney fees, Plaintiff is representing herself in this lawsuit. “[T]he
very use of the term ‘attorney fees’ presupposes that the prevailing party has
been represented by an attorney.” (Atherton v. Board of Supervisors (1986)
176 Cal.App.3d 433, 436.) As a self-represented party, Plaintiff cannot demand
attorneys’ fees for attorney services that were never provided to her, nor fees
that she never incurred.
As
for punitive damages, Civil Code section 3294 permits punitive damages only in
actions “for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract.” (Civ.
Code, § 3294, subd. (a).) By contrast, punitive damages “may not be granted in
an action based on a breach of contract even though the defendant’s breach was
willful or fraudulent.” (Crogan v. Metz (1956) 47 Cal.2d 398, 405.) Here, Plaintiff alleges that Plaintiff and
Costco entered into a refrigerator purchase agreement, whereby Costco agreed
to, and did, sell a refrigerator to Plaintiff in exchange for an agreed upon
price. (Compliant, ¶ 6.) Plaintiff claims that the refrigerator Costco sold her
was defective, and by reason of this defect, she suffered consequential
property damage. (Id., ¶ 10.) In other words, Costco’s liability arises out of
allegations that it sold a defective refrigerator to Plaintiff. Because
Costco’s liability therefore rises out of its obligations under the contract,
punitive damages are not recoverable.
Based
on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to strike is granted.
It is so ordered.
Dated: February
, 2024
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.