Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 25STCV00895, Date: 2025-05-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 25STCV00895    Hearing Date: May 12, 2025    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s demurrer is SUSTAINED, WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND, as to the fifth and ninth causes of action. Defendant’s demurrer is OVERRULED as to the remaining causes of action.

            Defendant’s motion to strike is DENIED.

            On 1/14/2025, Plaintiff David Herrera (Plaintiff) filed suit against Ramona Properties, LLC (Defendant), alleging: (1) breach of warranty of habitability; (2) breach of warranty of habitability; (3) breach of warranty of habitability; (4) negligence per se; (5) nuisance; (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (7) breach of contract; (8) unfair business practices; and (9) fraudulent concealment.

            On 3/20/2025, Defendant demurred to Plaintiff’s fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth causes of action. Defendant also moves to strike portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Discussion

            Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s claims are insufficiently pled.

            After review, the Court agrees in part.

            As for the fifth cause of action, Defendant argues that this claim is duplicative. The Court agrees. “‘Where negligence and nuisance causes of action rely on the same facts about lack of due care, the nuisance claim is a negligence claim.’ The nuisance claim ‘stands or falls with the determination of the negligence cause of action’ in such cases.” (Melton v. Boustred (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 521, 542.)

            As for the sixth cause of action, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not alleged extreme and outrageous conduct sufficient to show intentional infliction of emotional distress. However, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant knowingly allowed bed bugs and “deplorable” living conditions to persist at their residence. (Complaint ¶ 5.) Whether or not this conduct is, in fact, extreme and outrageous, is a factual determination not properly made at this stage.

            As for the seventh cause of action, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged the terms of the contract. The Court disagrees. Plaintiff alleges “Defendants and Plaintiff entered into a valid Rental Agreement (that had written, oral and implied terms) setting forth terms surrounding the rental of the room at the Subject Property.” (Complaint ¶ 166.) Plaintiff alleges that there was a warranty of habitability under the contract, and that it was breached by Defendant’s failure to address the bed bug infestation. This is sufficient to put Defendant on notice of the allegations support the breach of contract claim.

            As for the eighth cause of action, Plaintiff alleges that Plaintiff violated California Civil Code sections 1941 and 1941.1, and engaged in unfair business practices by demanding rent while failing to abate known habitability violations. As such, this claim is sufficiently plead at the pleadings stage.

            Finally, as for the ninth cause of action, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not alleged facts which could show fraudulent concealment. The Court agrees. Plaintiff’s allegations could show a breach of contract, but not fraud. “A person may not ordinarily recover in tort for the breach of duties that merely restate contractual obligations.” (Stop Loss Ins. Brokers, Inc. v. Brown & Toland Med. Grp. (2006) 143 Cal. App. 4th 1036, 1041 citing Aas v. Superior Court (2000) 24 Cal. 4th 627, 643.)

            Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s demurrer is sustained, without leave to amend, as to the fifth and ninth causes of action. Defendant’s demurrer is overruled as to the remaining causes of action.

Motion to Strike

            Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not alleged facts which could support a prayer for punitive damages. However, as set forth above, the Court overruled Defendant’s demurrer to the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. As such, Plaintiff has alleged facts which could show Defendant acted with conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s rights and with the intent, design, and malicious purpose of injuring the Plaintiff. (Civ. Code § 3294(b).)

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

It is so ordered.

Dated:  May    , 2025

   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.