Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV02916, Date: 2024-07-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV02916    Hearing Date: July 11, 2024    Dept: C

FABER v. 2018-1 IH BORROWER LP

CASE NO.:  23NWCV02916

HEARING:  07/11/24

#5

     I.        Defendants’ 2018-1 IH BORROWER LP and INVITATION HOMES REALTY CALIFORNIA, INC.’s Demurrer to Plaintiffs; Complaint is OVERRULED.

    II.        Defendants’ 2018-1 IH BORROWER LP and INVITATION HOMES REALTY CALIFORNIA, INC.’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs; Complaint is DENIED.

Opposing Party to give notice.

This action was filed by Plaintiffs TIFFANY FABER; KAREEM KELLY; SARAI HILL; SHILOH HARRIS; and ELIJAH’ALI KELLY (collectively “Plaintiffs”) on September 14, 2023 concerning their tenancy at the Subject Property. (Complaint ¶13.)

Plaintiffs allege that “[t]hroughout Plaintiffs’ tenancies, the Subject Property lacked basic characteristics necessary for human habitation… and would be considered a substandard unit as described in Heath & Safety Code §17920.3.” (Complaint ¶14.)

The Complaint asserts the following causes of action:

(1) Breach of Covenant/Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment/Warranty of Habitability;

(2) Tortious Breach of the Implied Warranty of Habitability;

(3) Negligence;

(4) Violation of Unfair Business Practices; and

(5) IIED

Defendants’ 2018-1 IH BORROWER LP and INVITATION HOMES REALTY CALIFORNIA, INC. (collectively “Defendants”) generally demur to the fifth cause of action for IIED.

Demurrer

“The elements of a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress are: (1) outrageous conduct by the defendant, (2) intention to cause or reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress, (3) severe emotional suffering and (4) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress.” (Wong v. Jing (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1354, 1376.) The conduct alleged must be “so extreme and outrageous as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.” (Coleman v. Republic Indemnity Ins. Co. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 403, 416.)

Here, the Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs “constantly and consistently complained to the Defendants… about… slum-housing and untenable conditions” including: inadequate plumbing; inadequate ventilation; dampness and mold; health and safety code violations; unsanitary conditions; and the failure to maintain the premises in a good and safe condition. (Complaint ¶15.) Plaintiffs further allege that “[d]ue to the untenable conditions at the Subject Property which Defendants have allowed to persist unabated, Plaintiffs’ have developed serious health issues…. Plaintiffs have all suffered from, and continue to suffer from severe emotional distress.” (Id. ¶21.)

The Complaint alleges that Defendants acted with reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress, and have caused Plaintiffs severe emotional distress. These allegations are sufficient to support claims for IIED at this stage in the litigation. The demurrer to the fifth cause of action is OVERRULED.

Motion to Strike

Defendants move to strike Plaintiffs’ prayer for punitive damages.

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.)

Punitive damages must be pled with specificity. Plaintiff must allege specific facts showing that the defendant’s conduct was oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious. (Smith v. Sup. Ct. (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1041-42.) For corporations, the advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, ratification, or act of oppression, fraud, or malice must be on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation. (Cal. Civ. Code §3294(b).)

“In a personal injury action the notion of conscious disregard of the safety of others logically may be substituted for that of disregard of the rights of others… [C]onscious disregard of safety as an appropriate description of the animus malus which may justify an exemplary damage award when nondeliberate injury is alleged.” (G.D. Searle & Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 22, 29.)  Here, Plaintiff adequately alleges that Defendants were aware of but failed to cure severe mold infestations and plumbing leaks for years, which caused physical harm to Plaintiffs. (See Complaint ¶¶17-22.) The motion to strike punitive damages is DENIED. The Complaint pleads sufficient facts to support a recovery of punitive damages at this stage in a litigation.