Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 24STCV10341, Date: 2024-09-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV10341    Hearing Date: September 4, 2024    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

            Cross-Defendants’ demurrer is OVERRULED. Cross-Defendants’ motion to strike is DENIED.

            On 4/25/2024, Plaintiffs Joshua and Lemor Greer (Plaintiff) filed suit against Kinga Lovasz, Management and Leasing Services, Inc., Ruth Friedman, and Lorraine Bases-Fermo, alleging: (1) negligence; (2) premises liability; (3) negligent infliction of emotional distress; (4) private nuisance; (5) violation of Los Angeles Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance; (6) breach of contract; (7) breach of implied warranty of habitability; and (8) breach of implied warranty of quiet enjoyment.

            On 6/28/2024, Cross-Complainants Ruth Friedman and Lorraine Bases-Fermo (collectively, Cross-Complainants) filed a Cross-Complaint against Josua and Lemor Greer (collectively, Cross-Defendants), alleging: (1) breach of lease; (2) fraud; (3) unjust enrichment; (4) elder abuse; and (5) declaratory relief.

            Now, Cross-Defendants demur to the second, third, and fourth causes of action. Cross-Defendants also move to strike portions of the Cross-Complaint.

Discussion

            Cross-Defendants argue that Cross-Complainants claims are insufficiently supported.

            After review, the Court disagrees.

            As for fraud, Cross-complaints allege that:

In May 2021 Greer submitted to Cross-Complainants the rental Application.

In the Application, Greer, with full intention to deceive, falsely led CrossComplainants’ property manager to believe that he was current on his rent through March of 2021, when he had not paid rent for over a year, by misrepresenting on the Application the date that he last paid rent. On the May 2021 Application, Greer represented that he last paid rent of $2,695 to his prior landlord in March. By intentionally omitting to provide the year that he last paid rent to his prior landlord (i.e., 2020 – the previous year), on his Application, Greer intentionally mislead Cross-Complainants to understand that he was current on rent through March of that same year (i.e., 2021). At the time of the Application, Greer had not paid his prior landlord rent for about a year and two months and misrepresented the said fact on his Application to hide this material fact from Cross-Complainants. Cross-Complainants are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that this omission of a material fact was an intentional misrepresentation designed to provide Cross-Complainants’ manager with the false impression that Greer was current on his rent through March of 2021. Greer knew the representation was false when he made it and intended to defraud Cross-Complainants by making his false representation. In fact, according to his allegations in the Sherbourne Action, Greer was unable to pay rent from April 2020 to June 2021 and did not pay rent during that time-frame.

Greer also represented in the Application that he was employed from February 2020 to the date of the Application and had a monthly salary of $10,000 and that he did not have any credit problems. According to his allegations in the Sherbourne Action, Greer was unable to pay rent to his prior landlord from April 2020 to June 2021 due in part to significant losses of income resulting from the COVID pandemic and he did not pay rent during that time. In not paying rent for over a year to the prior landlord, Greer had a credit problem. In fact, Greer admitted in the Sherbourne Action that the prior landlord was demanding back rent. Cross-Complainants are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that these representations also were false, and Greer knew the representations were false when he made them and intended to defraud CrossComplainants by making said false representations on his Application so that Cross-Complainants would rely on them and rent him the Premises.

Cross-Complainants, through their agent, reasonably and justifiably relied on Greer’s representations by entering into the Lease. Cross-Complainants would not have rented the Premises to Greer had they known he had not paid rent for over a year at his prior rental. Nor would they have rented to Greer if he had not inflated his income.

            (XC ¶¶ 34-35.)

            These allegations clearly set forth the “how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were made” (West v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 780, 793.) While Cross-Defendants contend that these allegations are false, and urge the court to consider “alternative possibilities” to explain Cross-Defendants’ conduct, the Court accepts well-pled allegations as true at the pleading stage and may not engage in factual determinations.

            As for unjust enrichment, Cross-Complainants allege that Cross-Defendants applied for and received a refund from the owner of the Temporary Rental, which they failed to return to Cross-Complainants as they promised they would.        (XC ¶¶ 44-45.)

Accepted as true at the pleading stage, these allegations are sufficient to state a claim.

            Finally, as for the elder abuse claim, California Welfare & Institutions Code section 15610.30 provides that elder abuse occurs when a person “[t]akes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult for a wrongful use or with intent to defraud, or both.” Here, Cross-Complainants allege:

Greer and Mrs. Greer have engaged in a pattern of conduct, as described above, that constitutes elder abuse of the elderly Cross-Complainants by, among other things, their participation in the wrongful retention and use of property of Cross-Complainants, to wit: 1) their failing to pay rent legally due and owing for more than a year while using the Premises, 2) their failing to refund advances made to them for alternative accommodations (the Temporary Rentals) that were not used on alternative accommodations because they illegitimately kept overpayments for themselves, 3) their failing to refund to Cross-Complainants refunds they received from the Temporary Rentals, because they illegitimately secretly kept those refunds for themselves as well and 4) their wrongful retention and use of the Premises, despite their representation that they are living elsewhere and have not resided at the Premises for months. Their retention of the CrossComplainants’ property (real property and personal property) in each case mentioned above was wrongful, not legitimate and not legally justified. The Premises was leased for residential purposes only. Cross-Defendants are not using it for residential purposes and have not used it for residential purposes for months. Since at least March 2024, Cross-Complainants are informed and believe that Greer and Mrs. Greer have wrongfully retained and used the Premises for illegitimate purposes including as a place to drop items that appear to be their junk. Cross-Complainants are further informed and believe that they have not relinquished possession and cleared out all of their personal items despite multiple promises to do so, as their plan is to keep Cross-Complainants from renting it to a third party to apply maximum financial and psychological pressure on the elderly Cross-Complainants, with the purpose of creating such financial hardship on CrossComplainants and such extreme pressure on Cross-Complainants, that Cross-Complainants will be scared and coerced into providing Cross-Defendants more money, without legal justification.

            (XC ¶¶ 50.)

            Accepted as true at the pleading stage, these allegations are sufficient to state a claim for elder abuse. While Cross-Defendants may dispute Cross-Complainants’ characterizations and contend that their theories are “far-fetched,” this involves factual determinations not properly made at this stage in the proceedings.

            Based on the foregoing, Cross-Defendants’ demurrer is overruled.

Motion to Strike

            Cross-Defendants argue that Cross-Complainants have not alleged sufficient facts to support their punitive damages prayer.

            As set forth above, the Court overruled Cross-Defendants’ demurrer to the fraud and elder abuse causes of action. Accordingly, Cross-Complainants have alleged sufficient facts which could show Cross-Defendants acted with malice, fraud, or oppression. (Civil Code § 3294.)

            Based on the foregoing, Cross-Defendants’ motion to strike is denied.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  September    , 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.