Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 24STCV16765, Date: 2024-10-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV16765    Hearing Date: October 10, 2024    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Donna Stewart (“Defendant”) moves to portions of the Complaint filed by Plaintiff Megan Denkers Baca (“Plaintiff”) relating to Plaintiff’s demand for punitive damages.

The Court DENIES the motion to strike.

Background

            This is a landlord-tenant case. The following facts are taken from the allegations of the Complaint.

            Plaintiff resides at 338 Orizaba Av., #2, Long Beach, California 90814 (the “Property”). Plaintiff is a tenant at the Property. Defendant is the landlord for the Property.

            While Plaintiff lived at the Property, the ceiling suffered water damage due to a leak in the unit upstairs. In September 2019, Plaintiff informed Defendant that the ceiling in the Property suffered from water damage. Defendant told Plaintiff that the leak was “not a priority”. (Complaint ¶ 11.)

            Following this interaction, the bathroom ceiling in the Property caved in, exposing wood and pipes. Plaintiff was unable to use the master bathroom or bedroom for one month following the collapse.

            In July 2022, the neighbor’s water heater broke and leaked into the master bedroom and hall closets. The water damage was never fixed, and water stains remain on the ceiling. The water damage has caused continuous musty smells up to the present.

            In December 2023, the valve to the toilet in the hall bathroom leaked all night, leaving a half inch of standing water in the entire Property. Coastline was called in to complete repairs. Plaintiff alleges that Coastline was instructed to withhold any information form Plaintiff regarding job completion. As a result, Plaintiff did not know when it would be safe to return home. Plaintiff also alleges that Coastline discovered other unspecified conditions when it removed the baseboards.

            Rainwater also seeped through the wall in the second bedroom, which was Plaintiff’s son’s bedroom. Water also seeped through the sliding glass door of the master bedroom. Plaintiff requested remediation, but Defendant refused to make updates.

            Plaintiff filed this action on July 5, 2024, raising claims for (1) negligence; (2) premises liability; (3) private nuisance; (4) tortious breach of the implied warranty of habitability; (5) breach of contract; (6) breach of the implied warranty of quiet enjoyment; and (7) constructive eviction.

            Defendant filed the motion to strike on September 3, 2024. Plaintiff filed an opposition and Defendant filed a reply.

Legal Standard

The court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436(a).) The court may also strike 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436(b).) The grounds for a motion to strike are that the pleading has irrelevant, false or improper matter, or has not been drawn or filed in conformity with laws. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437.)

Discussion

Punitive damages are appropriate when a defendant acted with malice, oppression, or fraud. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).) “Malice” is defined as conduct intended to cause injury to a person or despicable conduct carried on with a willful and conscious disregard for the rights or safety of others. (Turman v. Turning Point of Cent. Cal., Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63.) “Oppression” means despicable conduct subjecting a person to cruel and unjust hardship, in conscious disregard of the person’s rights. (Ibid.) “Fraud” is an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known by defendant, with intent to deprive a person of property, rights or otherwise cause injury. (Ibid.)

“In order to survive a motion to strike an allegation of punitive damages, the ultimate facts showing an entitlement to such relief must be pled by a plaintiff.” (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.) “In passing on the correctness of a ruling on a motion to strike, judges read allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth.” (Ibid.) “In ruling on a motion to strike, courts do not read allegations in isolation.” (Ibid.) Conclusory allegations, devoid of any factual assertions, are insufficient to support a conclusion that parties acted with oppression, fraud or malice. (Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1042.)

California courts have approved punitive damages where a landlord persistently fails to address substandard conditions. As the Court of Appeal explained in one case,

“The pleadings sufficiently allege facts setting forth long existing physical conditions of the premises which portend danger for the tenants. The pleadings also set out that respondents knew of those conditions for up to two years, had power to make changes, but failed to take corrective and curative measures. If proven, these allegations would support an award of punitive damages. We conclude that the motion to strike the punitive damage allegations was therefore improperly granted.”

(Penner v. Falk (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 858, 867.)

The facts here are weaker than in Penner. It is unclear how long Plaintiff reported the ceiling stain prior to the ceiling collapse. It is also less clear that the facts of the stain and leak portended danger. In Penner, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant landlord had maintained the building in a way that created hiding places for potential criminals,  while knowing that various crimes had occurred on the premises and in the neighborhood in the years leading up to the subject attack on the plaintiff. (Penner, supra, at pp. 862-863.)

Reading the Complaint as a whole, however, the Court finds that Plaintiff has adequately alleged malice and oppression. Plaintiff alleges that the repair company Coastline was instructed not to apprise Plaintiff of the progress on repairs when Plaintiff’s apartment was flooded, resulting in Plaintiff not knowing when she could return home. Similarly, Plaintiff has alleged a pattern of Defendant’s failure to repair various leaks in spite of Plaintiff’s complaints. Further, unlike in Penner, Plaintiff complained about the upstairs leak which led to the collapse, and Defendant stated that it was not a priority. (Contrast Penner, supra, 153 Cal. App.3d at p. 864 [defendants allegedly failed to disclose premise defects to plaintiff].) These facts, taken together, could allow a reasonable jury to make a finding of malice or oppression.

The Court therefore denies the motion to strike.