Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 24STCV18952, Date: 2024-12-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV18952    Hearing Date: December 9, 2024    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

            Defendants’ demurrer is OVERRULED.

            Defendants’ motion to strike is GRANTED.

            On 7/30/2024, Plaintiffs Valentina and Vahagn Asatryan (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed suit against Sourik Gasparian and Manushak Sldryan (collectively, Defendants), alleging: (1) negligence; (2) concealment; (3) violation of Civil Code section 1940.2; (4) breach of warranty of habitability; (5) breach of warranty of quiet enjoyment; (6) damages for violation of LARSO; (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED); (8) negligent infliction of emotional distress; (9) restitution.

            On 10/23/2024, Defendants demurred to the second and sixth causes of action.

Discussion

            Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not sufficiently plead claims for concealment or IIED.

            As for the fraud claim, Defendants note that Plaintiffs allege “on information and belief,” that Defendants had actual knowledge the unit was not permitted for use as a separate dwelling by tenant. (Complaint ¶ 13.) Defendants contend that Plaintiffs do not allege acts facts which could support this allegation. However, it is difficult to see how Plaintiffs could allege specific facts which would speak to Defendants’ knowledge without the benefit of discovery. At the pleading stage, this allegation is sufficient.

            As for the IIED claim, Defendants do not challenge the sufficiency of Plaintiffs’ claims for breach of the warranty of habituality, and as forth above, the Court overruled Defendants’ demurrer to the fraud cause of action. As such, Plaintiffs have alleged facts which, accepted as true, could show that Defendants engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct towards Plaintiffs with reckless disregard for the probability of causing emotional distress and which actually resulted in emotional distress. (Christensen v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 868, 903.)

            Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ demurrer is overruled.

Motion to Strike  

            Defendants move to strike Plaintiffs’ prayer for punitive damages. Given the Court’s conclusion that the fraud cause of action is sufficiently plead, Plaintiffs have necessarily alleged sufficient facts which could show malice, oppression, or fraud. (Civil Code §3294.)

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

It is so ordered.

Dated:  December    , 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.