Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00767, Date: 2023-01-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00767    Hearing Date: January 12, 2023    Dept: C

AVILA v. MIRANDA

CASE NO.:  22NWCV00767

HEARING:  01/12/23

#9

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendants’ Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is OVERRULED in part and SUSTAINED with 30 days leave to amend in part.

Opposing Party to give notice.

No Reply filed as of January 10, 2023. Due by January 5, 2023. (CCP §1005(b).)

Defendants’ request for judicial notice is GRANTED as to the existence of the documents, but not as to any hearsay statements contained therein. (Cal. Ev. Code §452.)

This action was filed by Plaintiffs ISELA AVILA; MIGUEL ROBLES; and YARETZI ROBLES (collectively “Plaintiffs”) on August 29, 2022. Plaintiffs allege the following relevant facts: “On or about October, 2013, Plaintiffs began renting the Premises for a monthly rent of $700 (the ‘Lease’). Plaintiffs are believed to have possession of the Premises under a verbal agreement in which they rent the Premises on a month-to-month term lease basis. [¶] On or about March 4, 2020 the State of California, the City of Los Angeles and the County of Los Angeles all declared an emergency, statewide and local…. As such… all enacted eviction moratoriums and tenant protections to protect tenants from eviction during a time when there were mandated ‘Stay at Home’ orders to stop the spread of COVID-19.” (Complaint ¶¶11-12.) “The Defendants have a history of retaliating against Plaintiffs whenever the Tenants make repair requests, or complain about the conditions of the Premises. When Tenants make these requests, the Defendants tell the Plaintiffs they need to make the repairs, pay for the repairs, and provide the Defendants receipts of the repairs, even though many of these repairs are the responsibility of the Defendants. The Plaintiffs and Defendants are neighbors, which makes it very convenient for the Defendants to harass, humiliate, threaten, and intimidate the Plaintiffs into submission.” (Complaint ¶13.) “The Defendants have engaged in a series of harassing antics in an effort to force the Plaintiffs out of their home. They have made threats to the Plaintiffs, repeatedly demanded that they move out of the Property, ridiculed the Plaintiffs and otherwise bullied them to the point Plaintiffs are insecure, stressed, depressed, can’t sleep and are anxious, to name a few of the issues Plaintiffs are emotionally facing.” (Complaint ¶27.) Plaintiffs allege that Avila has gone to therapy to address the emotional distress Defendants have caused her, and that she purportedly suffered a miscarriage after an exchange that occurred on August 4, 2022. (Complaint ¶¶28-29.)

The Complaint asserts the following causes of action: (1) Failure to Provide Habitable Dwelling; (2) Breach of Covenant and Right to Enjoyment and Possession of their Property; (3) Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (4) Harassment in Violation of Gov. Code §§12900-12996; (5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (6) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; (7) Nuisance; (8) Negligence; (9) Violation of Cal. Civ. Code §1940.2; and (10) Violation of Los Angeles County Eviction Moratorium.

Defendants PATRICIA MIRANDA; JAVIER MIRANDA; WENDY MIRANDA; and NOE MIRANDA (collectively “Defendants”) generally demur to the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and tenth causes of action.

First Cause of Action – Failure to Provide Habitable Dwelling

In order to state a claim for breach of the implied warranty of habitability, a plaintiff must allege “the existence of a material defective condition affecting the premises’ habitability, notice to the landlord of the condition within a reasonable time after the tenant’s discovery of the condition, the landlord was given a reasonable time to correct the deficiency, and resulting damages.” (Erlach v. Sierra Asset Servicing, LLC (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1297.) Implied in every rental agreement in California, whether oral or written, is a warranty of habitability, which requires landlords to maintain their Property in a habitable condition.

Here, Plaintiffs adequately allege that they entered into an oral month-to-month tenancy with Defendants. (Complaint ¶11.) Plaintiffs further allege the existence of several material defective conditions affecting the Subject Property’s habitability, notice to the landlord of these conditions within a reasonable time after discovery of the condition(s), that Defendants were given time to cure the deficiencies, and damages.  (Complaint ¶¶13-29.) The arguments raised by Defendants in the instant Demurrer involve factual disputes improperly litigated at this stage in the litigation.

The demurrer to the first cause of action is OVERRULED.

Second Cause of Action – Breach of Covenant and Right to Enjoyment and Possession of their Property

The covenant of quiet enjoyment arises impliedly between a landlord and tenant and affords the tenant quiet enjoyment and possession of the premises. (Andrews v. Mobile Aire Estates (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 578, 588.) The covenant of quiet enjoyment “insulates the tenant against any act or omission on the part of the landlord, or anyone claiming under him, which interferes with a tenant’s right to use and enjoy the premises for the purpose contemplated by the tenancy.” (Id.) Conduct that has been held to violate a tenant’s statutory right to quiet enjoyment of the premises under Cal. Civ. Code §1927 includes using or threatening to use “force, willful threats, or menacing conduct’ which creates “an apprehension of harm in a reasonable person.” (Cal. Civ. Code §1940.2.) Civil Code §1927 may be violated even if there is neither actual nor constructive eviction of the tenant. (Id.)

Plaintiffs adequately allege that that they reside at the Subject Property pursuant to an oral lease agreement, and that Defendants are their landlords. (Complaint ¶11.) Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants interfered with their use and enjoyment of the Subject Property by failing to repair the kitchen and bathroom areas, entering Plaintiffs’ unit, and ripping off Plaintiffs’ curtains, pointing security cameras directly into Plaintiffs’ unit, operating Plaintiffs’ mailbox without permission, threatening to evict Plaintiffs, etc. (See Complaint ¶¶13-27.)  Plaintiffs have adequately alleged Defendants interfered with their use and enjoyment of the Property for purposes of surviving demurrer.

The demurrer to the second cause of action is OVERRULED.

Third Cause of Action – Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

“A typical formulation of the burden imposed by the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is that neither party will do anything which will injure the right of the other to receive the benefits of the agreement. [Citations Omitted.]” (Gruenberg v. Aetna Ins. Co. (1973 9 Cal.3d 566, 573.) “A breach of the implied covenant of good faith is a breach of the contract and breach of a specific provision of the contract is not necessary to state a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. [Internal Citations Omitted.]” (Thrifty Payless, Inc. v. The Americana at Brand, LLC (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1230, 1244.)

Plaintiffs’ allege sufficient facts to show that Defendants’ breached their implied duty to act fairly and in good faith under the Lease by failing to maintain the Subject Property, and by interrupting Plaintiffs right to quiet possession of the Subject Property. Again, Defendants’ raise arguments inappropriately adjudicated at this juncture.

The demurrer to the third cause of action is OVERRULED.  

Fourth Cause of Action – Harassment (Gov. Code §§12900-12996)

Gov. Code §12921(b) prohibits “[t]he opportunity to seek, obtain, and hold housing without discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, veteran or military status, genetic information, or any other basis prohibited by Section 51 of the Civil Code is.. recognized to be a civil right.” 

Plaintiffs allege that “Defendants have subjected all Plaintiffs to harassment that has the effect of imposing different terms, conditions, or privileges relating to the rental of a dwelling or denying or limiting services in connection therewith based on harassing Avila… and /or constitutes unwelcome conduct that is sufficiently severe or pervasive as to interfere with the use or enjoyment of Plaintiffs’ rental dwellings….” (Complaint ¶69.)

The demurrer to the fourth cause of action is SUSTAINED with 30 days leave to amend. Plaintiffs must allege that they are members of a protected class, and that Defendants harassed/discriminated against Plaintiffs based on their protected status. As pled, Plaintiffs do not allege that Defendants treated Plaintiffs differently because they are members of a protected class.

Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action – Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

A cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress consists of three elements: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the Defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard for the possibility of causing, emotional distress; (2) Plaintiff suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by Defendant’s outrageous conduct. (Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1050.) Outrageous conduct is defined as conduct that is “so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community.” (Id. at p. 1050-1051.) An action for intentional infliction of emotional distress may be premised on a landlord or property manager’s knowing, intentional, and willful failure to correct defective conditions of the premises. (See Burnett v. Chimney Sweep (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1069.) The failure to correct defective conditions must be “directed at the plaintiff, or occur in the presence of a plaintiff of whom the defendant is aware.” (Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 965, 1002.)

The elements of a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress are as follows: (1) Defendant has a legal duty to use due care; (2) breach of such legal duty; (3) damage or injury (serious emotional distress); and (4) causation. (See Huggins v. Longs Drug Stores California, Inc. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 124, 129.)

The demurrer to the fifth and sixth causes of action is OVERRULED. Plaintiffs’ allegations, liberally construed for purposes of demurrer, sufficiently plead that Defendants knew about and failed to correct multiple defective conditions at the Subject Property after receiving notice from Plaintiffs. Whether Defendants’ conduct be considered “outrageous” or whether Plaintiffs’ injuries are sufficiently “severe” enough are factual issues. Plaintiffs’ ability to prove their allegations are not properly adjudicated at this time.

Seventh Cause of Action – Private Nuisance

A nuisance is statutorily defined as anything “injurious to health” or “indecent, or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction of the free use of property” that interferes “with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property…” (Cal. Civ. Code §3479.) “A private nuisance is a civil wrong based on disturbance of rights in land.” (Koll-Irvine Center Property Owners Assn. v. County of Orange (1994) 24 Cal. App. 4th 1036, 1041.) In general, “to proceed on a private nuisance theory the plaintiff must prove an injury specifically referable to the use and enjoyment of his or her land. The injury, however, need not be different in kind from that suffered by the general public.” (Id.) “So long as the interference is substantial and unreasonable, and such as would be offensive or inconvenient to the normal person, virtually any disturbance of the enjoyment of the property may amount to a nuisance.” (Id.)

The demurrer to the seventh cause of action is OVERRULED. Plaintiffs sufficiently allege facts to maintain this claim at the demurrer stage. As indicated, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to maintain a habitable premises, shouted obscenities at Plaintiffs, and threatened to evict Plaintiffs.

Tenth Cause of Action – Violation of Los Angeles County Eviction Moratorium

In March 2020, the County of Los Angeles issued an Executive Order imposing an eviction moratorium on residential and commercial tenants due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The LA County Eviction Moratorium prohibits landlords from increasing rent, and harassing/retaliating against tenants. Landlords are prohibited from harassing or intimidating tenants who exercise their rights. A tenant may sue a landlord for violations of the LA County Eviction Moratorium.

Plaintiffs adequately allege that Defendants attempted to evict them and/or increase their rent while the moratorium is in effect. The demurrer to the tenth cause of action is OVERRULED.