Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22STCV00297, Date: 2024-06-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV00297    Hearing Date: June 27, 2024    Dept: C

CIORLIERI v. LAPSI INN

CASE NO.:  22STCV00297

HEARING:  06/27/24

#4

     I.        Defendants ANMOL INVESTMENT, INC.; NIRU PATEL; SANP TRAKER; and PIYUSH PATEL’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is SUSTAINED with 30 days leave to amend in part; and OVERRULED in part.  

    II.        Defendants ANMOL INVESTMENT, INC.; NIRU PATEL; SANP TRAKER; and PIYUSH PATEL’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint is GRANTED with 30 days leave to amend.

Moving Party to give notice.

This personal injury action was filed by Plaintiff CARMELINA CIORLIERI (“Plaintiff”) on January 4, 2022. Plaintiff alleges that “[o]n or about January 4, 2020, Plaintiff… checked in at the hotel with her boyfriend… and was assigned a room…. [¶] That night…Ms. Ciorlieri and Mr. Medina discovered bedbugs in the hotel bed. Furthermore, Ms. Ciorlieri inspected her body to discovery she had been bitten across her arms, chest, and thighs.” (Complaint ¶¶16-17.)

Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts the following causes of action:

(1) Battery;

(2) Negligence;

(3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress;

(4) Fraudulent Concealment;

(5) Private Nuisance;

(6) Public Nuisance;

(7) Breach of Contract

Defendants ANMOL INVESTMENT, INC.; NIRU PATEL; SANP TRAKER; and PIYUSH PATEL (collectively “Defendants) specially and generally demur to the first, third, fourth, and sixth causes of action.

Uncertainty

Defendants argue that the first, third, fourth, and sixth causes of action are fatally uncertain. This argument lacks merit because “[a] special demurrer for uncertainty is not intended to reach the failure to incorporate sufficient facts in the pleading but is directed at the uncertainty existing in the allegations actually made.” (Butler v. Sequeira (1950) 100 Cal.App.2d 143, 145-146.) Moreover, demurrers for uncertainty are disfavored and will only be sustained where the pleading is so bad that the defendant cannot reasonably respond, i.e., he or she cannot reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what counts or claims are directed against him or her. (Khoury v. Maly’s of Calif. Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Ibid.) Here, it is clear from Defendants’ other arguments that they understand what the Complaint at least attempts to allege, and there is no true uncertainty. The Demurrer is not sustained on the basis of uncertainty.

First Cause of Action – Battery

“The essential elements of a cause of action for battery are: (1) defendant touched plaintiff, or caused plaintiff to be touched, with the intent to harm or offend plaintiff; (2) plaintiff did not consent to the touching; (3) plaintiff was harmed or offended by defendant’s conduct; and (4) a reasonable person in plaintiff’s position would have been offended by the touching” (So v. Shin (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 652, 668-669.)

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants deliberately chose not to eradicate known bedbug infestations at the hotel, which resulted in bedbugs making offensive contact with Plaintiff.  

Plaintiff’s allegations are devoid of factual allegations showing how Defendant, or its employees or agents, intentionally touched or intentionally harmed Plaintiff.

In support of his battery claim, Plaintiff relies heavily on a Seventh Circuit case, Mathias v. Acor Econ Lodging, Inc. (7th Cir. 2003) 347 F.3d 672. However, Mathias is no more than persuasive authority here, as it is governed by Illinois law and was not decided by California principles. Further, although Mathias involved allegations related to bedbug exposure, the Mathias Court did not conclude that battery was a valid claim—rather, the issue was addressed as a hypothetical. (See Mathias v. Accor Econ. Lodging, Inc. (7th Cir. 2003) 347 F.3d 672, 675. [“Its failure either to warn guests or to take effective measures to eliminate the bedbugs amounted to fraud and probably to battery as well….”].) 

Plaintiff does not cite any binding California authority in Opposition that would support his claim for battery. The demurrer to the first cause of action is SUSTAINED with 30 days leave to amend.  

Third Cause of Action – Intentional 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 demurrer to the third cause of action is OVERRULED. Plaintiff’s allegations, liberally construed for purposes of demurrer, sufficiently plead that Defendants knew about and failed to correct the bedbug infestation after receiving notice. Whether that conduct be considered “outrageous” or whether Plaintiff’s injuries are sufficiently “severe” enough are factual issues. Plaintiff’s ability to prove his allegations are not properly adjudicated at this time.

Fourth Cause of Action – Fraudulent Concealment

“[T]he elements of a cause of action for fraud and deceit based on concealment are: (1) the defendant must have concealed or suppressed a material fact, (2) the defendant must have been under a duty to disclose the fact to the plaintiff, (3) the defendant must have intentionally concealed or suppressed the fact with the intent to defraud the plaintiff, (4) the plaintiff must have been unaware of the fact and would not have acted as he did if he had known of the concealed or suppressed fact, and (5) as a result of the concealment or suppression of the fact, the plaintiff must have sustained damage.” (Marketing West, Inc. v. Sanyo Fisher (USA) Corp. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 603, 612-613.) “Fraud must be pleaded with specificity… [t]o withstand a demurrer, the facts constituting every element of the fraud must be alleged with particularity, and the claim cannot be salvaged by references to the general policy favoring the liberal construction of pleadings. (Goldrich v. Natural Y Surgical Specialties, Inc. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 772, 782.) “This particularity requirement necessitates pleading facts which ‘show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered.’” (Stansfield v. Starkey (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 59, 73.) “The requirement of specific in a fraud action against a corporation requires the plaintiff to allege the names of the persons who made the allegedly fraudulent representations, their authority to speak, to whom they spoke, what they said or wrote, and when it was said or written.” (Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 153, 157.)

Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations are insufficient. Legal conclusions or mere recitations of law do not suffice. As noted, specificity is required. Plaintiff must plead facts to show that Defendants had actual knowledge of the presence of bedbugs in Plaintiff’s room at the time Plaintiff was renting the room. The demurrer to the fourth cause of action is SUSTAINED with 30 days leave to amend.

Sixth Cause of Action – Public 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 public nuisance is one which affects at the same time an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal.” (Cal. Civ. Code §3480.)

Plaintiff’s fails to allege facts to support a claim for public nuisance. Specifically, Plaintiff does not allege that a “considerable number of persons” were affected at the same time, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property that affects at the same time an entire community or neighborhood. The demurrer to this cause of action is SUSTAINED with 30 days leave to amend.

Motion to Strike

A motion to strike lies either when (1) there is “irrelevant, false or improper matter inserted in any pleading”; or (2) to strike any pleading or part thereof “not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule or order of court.” (CCP §436.)

The basis for punitive damages must be pled with specificity. Plaintiff must allege specific facts showing that Defendant’s conduct was oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious. (Smith v. Superior Court (1992) Cal.App.4th 1033, 1041-1042.). Given the Court’s findings above, the motion to strike punitive damages is GRANTED with 30 days leave to amend. As alleged, Plaintiff has failed to plead specific facts to maintain a claim for punitive damages.