Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 22STCV39938, Date: 2025-01-13 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV39938 Hearing Date: January 13, 2025 Dept: 72
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT 72
TENTATIVE
RULING
|
ALICIA AVILA MARTINEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FERMAN CEJA, et al., Defendants. |
Case No:
22STCV39938 Hearing Date: January 13, 2025 Calendar Number: 1 |
Plaintiffs Alicia Avila Martinez, Gerardo Quiroz, Valeria
Gonzalez Martinez, Jose Guzman, Liczy Guzman, Hillary Tadeo Islas Gonzalez (by
and through her guardian ad litem Valeria Gonzalez Martinez), Vilma Lopez,
Edverth Lopez, Maria Lopez, Kimberly Lopez, Karicia Lopez, and Kevin Cardenas (collectively,
“Plaintiffs”) seek default judgment against Defendants Ferman Ceja and Teresa
Ceja (collectively, “Defendants”).
Plaintiffs request damages in the amount of $2,400,000.00. Plaintiffs
do not request any other relief.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request for default judgment.
This is a landlord-tenant case. Plaintiffs lived at various
properties owned by Defendants at 1605, 1607, and 1607 1/2 W. 12th Street, Los
Angeles, California 90015 (collectively, the “Properties”).
Plaintiffs allege that the Properties suffered from a myriad
of issues, including bed bug, cockroach, and rat infestations, plumbing and
electrical problems, mold, crumbling walls and ceilings, heating issues,
unreliable water, broken windows, and unstable foundations. (See generally
Hughs Decl. ¶¶ 9-11.) Since 2007, the Los Angeles Housing Department (“LAHD”)
has issued at least eight Notices and Orders to Comply to Defendants for
violations of housing and health and safety laws at the Properties. Plaintiffs
allege that, due to the conditions at the property, Plaintiffs have had to
discard numerous personal belongings and have used their own funds on
insecticides, cleaning products, and traps to combat the infestations.
Plaintiffs repeatedly complained of the conditions of the
Properties to Defendants, but Defendants did not resolve the problems.
Defendants and their agents also threatened to evict Plaintiffs, failed to give
proper notice of entry to Plaintiffs’ units, and screamed at Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs filed this action on December 22, 2022. The
Complaint asserts 12 causes of action: (1) Negligence; (2) Breach of Implied
Warranty of Habitability; (3) Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment; (4)
Nuisance; (5) Premises Liability; (6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional
Distress; (7) Violation of Civil Code Section 1942.4 (Collection of Rent on
Substandard Dwelling Units); (8) Willful Interruption of Services; (9) Retaliation;
(10) Harassment; (11) Violation of the Unfair Competition Law (Business and
Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.); and (12) Violation of Tenant
Anti-Harassment Ordinance (Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 45.30 et seq.).
On January 4, 2024, default was entered against Defendants as
to the Complaint.
Plaintiffs subsequently sought entry of default judgment. On
April 8, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ application on the basis that the
Complaint did not demand the amount of damages sought on default and that
Plaintiffs had not filed a Form CIV-100.
On April 25, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the First Amended
Complaint (“FAC”), which is now the operative complaint and raises the same
causes of action as the Complaint.
On November 25, 2024, default was entered against Defendants
as to the FAC.
CCP § 585 permits entry of a judgment after a Defendant has
failed to timely answer after being properly served. A party seeking judgment on the default by
the Court must file a Form CIV-100 Request for Court Judgment, and:
(1) Proof of service of the complaint and summons;
(2) A dismissal of
all parties against whom judgment is not sought (including Doe defendants) or
an application for separate judgment under CCP § 579, supported by a showing of
grounds for each judgment (CRC 3.1800(a)(7));
(3) A declaration
of non-military status as to the defendant (typically included in Form CIV-100)
(CRC 3.1800(a)(5));
(4) A brief summary of the case (CRC 3.1800(a)(1));
(5) Admissible
evidence supporting a prima facie case for the damages or other relief requested
(Johnson v. Stanhiser (1999) 72
Cal.App.4th 357, 361-362);
(6) Interest computations as necessary (CRC 3.1800(a)(3));
(7) A memorandum of
costs and disbursements (typically included in Form CIV-100 (CRC 3.1800(a)(4));
(8) A request for
attorney’s fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties (CRC
3.1800(a)(9)), accompanied by a declaration stating that the fees were
calculated in accordance with the fee schedule as per Local Rule 3.214. Where a request for attorney fees is based on
a contractual provision the specific provision must be cited; (Local Rule
3.207); and
(9) A proposed form
of judgment (CRC 3.1800(a)(6));
(10) Where an
application for default judgment is based upon a written obligation to pay
money, the original written agreement should be submitted for cancellation (CRC
3.1806). A trial court may exercise its discretion to accept a copy where the
original document was lost or destroyed by ordering the clerk to cancel the
copy instead (Kahn v. Lasorda's Dugout, Inc. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th
1118, 1124);
(11) Where the
plaintiff seeks damages for personal injury or wrongful death, they must serve
a statement of damages on the defendant in the same manner as a summons (Code
Civ. Proc. § 425.11, subd. (c), (d)).
(California Rules
of Court rule 3.1800.)
Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5(a)(1), items are
allowable as costs under Section 1032 if they are “filing, motion, and jury
fees.”
A party who defaults only admits facts well pleaded in the
complaint or cross-complaint. (Molen
v. Friedman (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1149, 1153-1154.) Thus, the complaint must state a claim for
the requested relief.
On
August 17, 2023, the Court ordered service of the Complaint and Summons by
publication as to both Defendants. Plaintiffs filed proof of publication in the
Los Angeles Daily Journal on October 31, 2023.
On
August 19, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a proof of publication as to both Defendants
for the FAC.
On
September 20, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a proof of substitute service for each
Defendant, indicating that Defendants were served by substitute service on June
18, 2024 at 11859 East Cresta Verde Drive, Whittier, California 90601.
On January 3, 2025, Plaintiff requested that the Doe
defendants be dismissed.
Laura Matter avers to Defendants’ nonmilitary status.
Plaintiffs provide a brief summary of the case. Plaintiffs
adequately plead their causes of action in the Complaint.
“Code of Civil Procedure section 580 prohibits the entry of
a default judgment in an amount in excess of that demanded in the complaint.” (Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011)
201 Cal.App.4th 267, 286.) Moreover, “a statement of damages cannot be relied
upon to establish a plaintiff's monetary damages, except in cases of personal
injury or wrongful death.” (Ibid.) “In all other cases, when recovering
damages in a default judgment, the plaintiff is limited to the damages
specified in the complaint.” (Ibid.) Moreover, a plaintiff must submit admissible
evidence supporting a prima facie case for the damages or other relief requested
(Johnson v. Stanhiser (1999) 72
Cal.App.4th 357, 361-362.)
Plaintiffs
request $2,400,000.00 in damages, as well as punitive damages in an amount that
they do not specify.
Here,
the lack of integrated pest management at the Properties forced Plaintiffs to
use self-help methods, including pesticides, which can impose significant
health and safety risk on the tenants. (Shoemaker Decl. ¶ 12.) Cockroach
infestations are one of the most important risk factors for development of
asthma in inner city households. (Shoemaker Decl. ¶ 13.) Rodent infestations
act as vectors for disease and can carry foodborne pathogens. (Shoemaker Decl.
¶ 14.)
A
number of Plaintiffs have suffered bug bites, rashes, and headaches several
times a week, and allergic reactions on a monthly basis, as well as daily fear,
worry, and loss of appetite. (Maria Lopez Decl. ¶ 7; Kimberly Lopez Decl. ¶ 7; Karicia
Lopez Decl. ¶ 7.) Hillary Tadeo Islas Gonzalez has been frequently sick and has
had respiratory problems for the past two years. (Valeria Gonzales Martinez
Decl. ¶ 7.) Edverth Lopez has experienced bug bites, difficulty breathing,
asthma symptoms, frequent colds, rashes, headaches, and an inability to sleep.
(Edverth Lopez Decl. ¶ 27.) Vilma Lopez gets a lot of colds in the winter
because the heater does not work and has difficulty breathing and asthma
symptoms. (Vilma Lopez Decl. ¶ 15.) In 2020, a small cockroach climbed inside
Kimberly Lopez’s ear, resulting in ongoing fear of cockroaches and the use of
cotton balls in her ears while she sleeps to prevent cockroaches from entering.
(Kimberly Lopez Decl. ¶ 6.)
Plaintiffs
incurred expenses in repairing some of the Properties’ defects. (Edverth Lopez
Decl. ¶ 13.) Plaintiffs also experienced thousands of dollars of property loss
as a result of the conditions at the Properties. (Edverth Lopez Decl. ¶ 28;
Liczy Guzman Decl. ¶ 9; Vilma Lopez Decl. ¶ 17; Valeria Gonzales Martinez Decl.
¶ 9.)
Since
at least 2021, the Guzman and Martinez family’s bathtub has drained into the
wall and then directly under the foundation of the building. (Alicia Avila
Martinez Decl., ¶ 9.) Because of this, the family does not use the shower or
bathtub faucet, and instead fills buckets in the kitchen or bathroom sink to
bathe. (Alicia Avila Martinez Decl., ¶ 9.)
Due to the water leaks at the Properties, the water bills
paid by the Lopez family are often very high. (Vilma Lopez Decl., ¶ 8.)
There
is also evidence of direct conduct by Ferman Ceja as well. For example, on one
occasion, Ferman Ceja demanded to be let into the Guzman and Martinez family’s
unit without notice and while an adult was not home, and banged on the doors
and windows when Liczy Guzman did not let him in. (Liczy Guzman Decl. ¶ 7.) In
2015, Ferman Ceja yelled at Alicia Avila Martinez, Liczy Guzman’s mother, that
he was going to “call immigration” on her and took photos of both Martinez and
Guzman. (Liczy Guzman Decl. ¶ 8.)
Many of the Plaintiffs feel chronically fearful, surveilled,
or unsafe as a result of Defendants’ conduct, and similarly experience great
stress over the conditions at the Properties, which were ongoing for years.
(Edverth Lopez Decl. ¶¶ 21, 24, 26; Maria Lopez Decl. ¶ 6; Kimberly Lopez Decl.
¶ 6; Karicia Lopez Decl. ¶ 6; Liczy Guzman Decl. ¶¶ 6, 8; Kevin Cardenas Decl.
¶ 6; Alicia Avila Martinez Decl. ¶ 20; Vilma Lopez Decl. ¶ 14; Gerardo Quiroz
Decl. ¶ 6; Valeria Gonzalez Martinez Decl. ¶¶ 6, 8; Jose Gonzalez Decl. ¶¶
6-7.)
Many of the Plaintiffs also suffer ongoing fear that the
building will collapse due to the structural issues caused by the water.
(Edverth Lopez Decl. ¶ 23; Maria Lopez Decl. ¶ 6.)
Plaintiffs’ damages figure of $2,400,000.00 appears to
consist of $200,000.00 per Plaintiff. (See FAC at pp. 32:10-34:22.) The Court
finds that Plaintiffs have provided adequate evidence of these damages for
purposes of the default judgment.
Plaintiffs do not request pre-judgment interest.
Plaintiffs do not request costs.
Plaintiffs
do not request attorney’s fees.
Plaintiffs
have submitted a proposed form of judgment as required.
Plaintiff does not need to submit a statement of damages
because this is not a personal injury or wrongful death case.