Judge: Loren G. Freestone, Case: 37-2023-00018822-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-05-31 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 30, 2024

05/31/2024  10:30:00 AM  C-64 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Loren G. Freestone

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2023-00018822-CU-BC-CTL HOLLINGSWORTH-FOXWORTH VS NATIONAL CITY PARK APARTMENTS II CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING Defendants Sharon Ramirez and SDBTC Family Housing Corp. One's motion to strike portions of the complaint filed by Plaintiffs Chenae Foxworth, Zachariah Hollingsworth-Foxworth, Isaiah Hollingsworth-Foxworth, and Adaiah Aristide is DENIED.

Punitive Damages Defendants move to strike Plaintiffs' prayer for punitive damages and related allegations. Defendants argue that the prayer is not supported by the facts, and that such damages are not available for a simple breach of lease.

'[P]unitive damages may be awarded in an action by a residential tenant based on the landlord's interference with peaceful possession.' (Sprinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood Apartments (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1055.) Punitive damages may also be recoverable when a landlord retaliates against a tenant (Civ. Code, § 1942.5, subd. (h)(2)) or permits a nuisance at the property (Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 903, 919–920).

'To support punitive damages, the complaint asserting one of those causes of action must allege ultimate facts of the defendant's oppression, fraud, or malice. A claim for exemplary damages may be supported by pleading that the wrong was committed willfully or with a design to injure. The claim may also be supported by showing despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or of others.' (Sprinks, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at p. 1055.) In Sprinks, '[a]lthough not accompanied with threats, violence or abusive language, the eviction was deliberate and intentional' and 'was carried out despite concerns about the legality of the acts and about their effect on plaintiff's welfare.' (Sprinks, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1055–1056.) The court held '[s]uch conduct may be considered 'outrageous'' and that 'a reasonable jury could find that defendants acted with conscious disregard for plaintiff's rights.' (Ibid.) In Penner v. Falk (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 858, the plaintiff-tenant alleged 'facts setting forth long existing physical conditions of the premises which portend danger for the tenants. The pleadings also set out that [the defendants] knew of those conditions for up to two years, had power to make changes, but failed to take corrective and curative measures.' (Penner, supra, 153 Cal.App.3d at p. 867.) The court held these allegations would support an award of punitive damages in connection with the plaintiff's Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3097456  37 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  HOLLINGSWORTH-FOXWORTH VS NATIONAL CITY PARK  37-2023-00018822-CU-BC-CTL negligence claim, and therefore reversed the trial court's order striking that prayer for relief. (Ibid.) In Aweeka v. Bonda (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 278, the plaintiffs complained about a leak from the ceiling and a defective backdoor that was in need of repair. The landlord refused to make any repairs, and when the plaintiffs indicated they were going to make the repairs and deduct the cost from their rent, the landlord effectively evicted them by increased their rent above what they could afford. (Aweeka, supra, 20 Cal.App.3d at p. 280.) The court held such acts could support a prayer for punitive damages. (See id. at p. 281.) In Farvour v. Geltis (1949) 91 Cal.App.2d 603, the defendant-landlord removed windows and doors from the plaintiffs' apartment. While the windows were out it was foggy, the apartment was windswept, and the plaintiffs caught colds. The health department ordered that the windows be replaced within 24-hours, but the landlord did not replace the windows for 2-weeks. This conduct showed 'a particularly heartless and aggravated desire' to 'oppress and inconvenience his tenants.' (Farvour, supra, 91 Cal.App.2d at pp. 605–606.) Here, Plaintiffs allege that their apartment suffered from water damage, water intrusions, excess moisture, mold, mites, and other related allergens. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants initially refused to remediate because there was 'not enough mold.' Without addressing the source of the water intrusion, Defendants instead simply painted over the molded areas. When Defendants had their own company inspect the property, they allegedly concealed the results from Plaintiffs. When Defendants finally agreed to remediate, they allegedly entered Plaintiffs' unit without notice. Plaintiffs were displaced from their home for an extended period while remediation took place. When Plaintiffs moved back into the unit, they discovered that several habitability issues remained. Plaintiffs also started experiencing health problems as a result of the habitability issues. Although Plaintiffs notified Defendants about the remaining habitability issues and their resulting health problems, Defendants allegedly refused to take any further action to help and told Plaintiffs that the issue was 'resolved.' Defendants then allegedly began to retaliate by raising Plaintiffs rent and charging Plaintiffs new fees that other tenants were not required to pay. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants acted maliciously and oppressively, in conscious disregard of their health.

Under Sprinks, Penner, Aweeka, and Faryour, Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged facts supporting a prayer for punitive damages. The motion to strike the prayer for punitive damages and related allegations is therefore denied.

Prejudgment Interests Defendants move to strike Plaintiffs' prayer for prejudgment interest and related allegations. Defendants argue that prejudgment interest is not recoverable because the amount of Plaintiffs' damages is not capable of being made certain by calculation.

A plaintiff is generally entitled to prejudgment interest when the amount of damages is 'certain, or capable of being made certain by calculation.' (Civ. Code, § 3287, subd. (a).) However, even when a contract claim is unliquidated, prejudgment interest may be awarded in the discretion of the court. (Id. at subd. (b).) Prejudgment interest may also be recovered in 'an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, and in every case of oppression, fraud, or malice,' in the discretion of the jury. (Id.

at § 3288.) Although Plaintiffs may not be entitled to prejudgment interest as a matter of right, they may be able to recover it in the discretion of the court or jury. The motion to strike the prayer for prejudgment interest and related allegations is therefore denied.

Conclusion The motion to strike is denied. Defendants shall file an answer within 10 days.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3097456  37 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  HOLLINGSWORTH-FOXWORTH VS NATIONAL CITY PARK  37-2023-00018822-CU-BC-CTL Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3097456  37