Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 24STCV09392, Date: 2024-10-01 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV09392 Hearing Date: October 1, 2024 Dept: 72
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT 72
TENTATIVE RULING
GEORGE HANDY, Plaintiff, v. AIDS HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION, Defendant. |
Case No: 24STCV09392 Hearing Date: October 1, 2024 Calendar
Number: 8 |
Defendant
Aids Healthcare Foundation moves to strike certain allegations and prayers from
relief from Plaintiff’s complaint.
The
Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to strike.
Background
Plaintiff George Handy sued
defendant Aids Healthcare Foundation (“AHF”) on April 15, 2024. He filed his
operative first amended complaint (“FAC”) on July 24, 2024. In his FAC,
Plaintiff asserts eight causes of action arising from Plaintiff’s tenancy at
the residential property located at 501 S. Los Angeles St., Los Angeles, CA
90013 (“the Property”).
As alleged in the complaint and
accepted as true for purposes of Defendant’s motion to strike (paragraph
citations to the FAC): Plaintiff lived in two different units on the Property
pursuant to residential leases executed in 2019 and 2023, respectively. (¶ 9.) Defendant
owned, managed, or leased the Property at all relevant times. (¶ 2.)
Defendant maintained both of
Plaintiff’s units in untenantable condition. The conditions Plaintiff endured
during his tenancy include, but are not limited to, (1) leaking so severe that
it caused holes in Plaintiff’s ceiling (¶ 14); (2) bedbug infestation so severe
that the insects “infested the entire unit, including the carpet, and their
carcasses could be found lying around” (¶ 17); and (3) numerous code
violations, including fire safety violations, that went unaddressed despite
citations from City agencies (¶ 20).
Plaintiff alleges, in short, “that
Defendants are slum lords whose goal is to maximize their income by preying on
persons who do not have the power or ability to protect their rights.” (¶ 66.)
On August 23, 2024, Defendant moved
to strike two paragraphs from Plaintiff’s complaint and a portion of his prayer
for relief. Plaintiff filed his opposition on September 17, 2024. On September
23, 2024, Defendant replied.
Legal Standard
Motions to strike are used to reach defects or
objections to pleadings that are not challengeable by demurrer, such as words,
phrases, and prayers for damages. (See Code Civ. Proc. §§ 435, 436, and 437.)
The proper procedure to attack false allegations in a pleading is a motion to
strike. (Id. § 436 (a).)
“The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section
435 [notice of motion to strike whole or part of complaint], or at any time in
its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (a) Strike out any irrelevant,
false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.” (Id. § 436 (a).)
Irrelevant matters include immaterial allegations that are not essential to the
claim or those not pertinent to or supported by an otherwise sufficient claim.
(Id., § 431.10.) The court may also “[s]trike out all or any part of any
pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court
rule, or an order of the court.” (Id. § 436 (b).)
Discussion
Meeting
and Conference
Code of
Civil Procedure section 435.5 requires
the party filing a motion to strike to meet and confer with its opponent before
filing. Defendant’s counsel filed a declaration that satisfied section 435.5.
(Dahl Decl., ¶¶ 2-4.)
Punitive Damages
Defendant’s motion is directed to Plaintiff’s allegations regarding
Defendant’s liability for punitive damages (¶¶ 48, 62) and to Plaintiff’s
prayer for punitive damages (Compl., 21:17).
A motion to strike
is the proper procedure to attack a purportedly improper remedy such as
unjustified punitive damages. (Venice Town Council, Inc. v. City of Los
Angeles (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1547, 1561-1562.) A complaint including a
request for punitive damages must also include allegations showing that the
plaintiff is entitled to such an award. (Clauson v. Superior Court
(1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.)
California Civil
Code section 3294 authorizes the recovery of punitive damages “[i]n an action
for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where … the
defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice … .” (Civ. Code §
3294(a).)
For a corporate defendant, the oppression, fraud or
malice “must be on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent of the
corporation.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd.
(b).) That requirement can be satisfied
“ ‘if the evidence permits a clear and convincing inference that within the
corporate hierarchy authorized persons acted despicably in “willful and
conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.” ’ [Citation.]”
(Morgan v. J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc. (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th
1078, 1090.)
Plaintiffs’ FAC contains allegations sufficient to ascribe oppression
to Defendant’s officers. Oppression
requires no evil motive to inflict a specific harm; it requires only a
knowledge that the victim’s rights are being violated, and continuation of the
violative behavior. (Cf. Tomaselli v. Transamerica Ins. Co. (1994) 25
Cal.App.4th 1269, 1286-1287 [“[p]unitive damages are appropriate if the
defendant’s acts are … in blatant violation of law or policy].) A landlord that abuses its power over a residential tenant
may be liable for punitive damages. (See Spinks v. Equity Residential
Briarwood Apartments (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1055-1056; cf. Yurick
v. Superior Court (1989) 209 Cal. App. 3d 1116, 1129 [power disparity contributes to
oppression in employment context] Agarwal v. Johnson
(1979) 25 Cal. 3d 932, 946-947 [same].)
Here,
the FAC characterizes the substandard
conditions at the Property as part of an intentional business practice that Defendant
uses to maximize its profits at the expense of vulnerable tenants. (¶ 66.)
Although Plaintiff does not identify a specific managing agent and
ascribe them a specific state of mind, Plaintiff alleges enough facts which, if
true, support that Defendant engaged in a widespread practice known to its
corporate decisionmakers. This is sufficient, for pleading purposes, to allege
Defendant’s officers’ conscious disregard for its tenants’ rights.
The motion is
denied. Defendant to give notice.