Judge: Kristin S. Escalante , Case: 23STCV00444, Date: 2023-04-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV00444    Hearing Date: April 26, 2023    Dept: 24

Motion of defendant Jue Wang to strike portions of plaintiff’s complaint.

DENIED on grounds set forth in the opposing papers.

Defendant Jue Wang (“Defendant”) moves to strike the punitive damages allegations and prayer from the complaint filed by Plaintiff Terry Hanson (“Plaintiff”). (Notice of Mtn., at p.1.)

By way of background, this is a habitability case. Plaintiff filed suit on 01/20/2023 alleging Defendant rented to Plaintiff an illegally converted garage unit at the real property located at 362 S. Craig Avenue., Pasadena California 91107 (“subject property”). During the period Plaintiff rented the unit, Defendant failed to maintain it in a habitable condition including roof leaks, loss of electricity, lack of running water in the shower, and general dilapidation. The Los Angeles Department of Regional Planning sent Defendant a notice of violation regarding the unpermitted dwelling and ordered Defendant to comply with the provisions of the notice. Defendant then tried to illegally evict Plaintiff on during the eviction moratorium in place due to the Covid-19 Pandemic.

Discussion

To state a claim for punitive damages under Civil Code section 3294, a plaintiff must allege specific facts showing that the defendant has been guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud.  (Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal. App. 4th 1033, 1042.) The basis for punitive damages must be pled with specificity; conclusory allegations devoid of any factual assertions are insufficient. (Id.) A motion to strike may lie where the facts alleged, if proven, would not support a finding that the defendant acted with malice, fraud or oppression.  (Turman v. Turning Point of Central California (2010) 191 Cal. App. 4th 53, 63; See also Code Civ. Proc. § 3294 [defining malice, fraud and oppression].)

The court disagrees with Defendant that Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 903, 920 (Stoiber) is inapplicable to the present suit. In Stoiber, the court held that a claim for punitive damages was adequately alleged when the complaint alleged that “defendant had actual knowledge of the defective conditions in the premises including leaking swage, deteriorated flooring, falling ceiling, leaking roof, broken windows and other unsafe and dangerous conditions” and that defendant “acted with full knowledge of the consequences thereof and the damage being caused to plaintiff, and their conduct was willful, oppressive and malicious.”  Plaintiff has alleged similar facts here, and thus has adequately stated a claim for punitive damages.  (See also Smith v. David (1981) 120 Cal. App. 3d 101, n.3 [punitive damages available for intentional tortious breach of the warranty of habitability].)

Here Plaintiff pleads Defendant (i) owned the subject property, (ii) failed to maintain the property in a habitable condition, (ii) received notice from Plaintiff regarding defects in the shower and the roof, and (iv) refused to remedy the defects. (Compl., ¶¶ 3, 4, 9, 28, 29.) These allegations are sufficient to establish a right to punitive damages for a breach of the implied warranty of habitability. (See stoiber v. Honeychuck, (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d, 903, 920.)

Accordingly, the motion is denied.