Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 22STCV14818, Date: 2022-10-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV14818    Hearing Date: October 25, 2022    Dept: 55

RODRIGUEZ  v. KONG et al.                                                        22STCV14818

Hearing Date:  10/25/22,  Dept. 55

#8:   DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT;   MOTION TO STRIKE.

 

Notice:  Okay

Opposition

 

MP:  Defendants

RP:  Plaintiff

 

 

Summary

 

On 5/3/22, Plaintiff, ANNIE RODRIGUEZ, filed a Complaint alleging that Plaintiff was a tenant at 1646 Matchleaf Avenue. Hacienda Heights, as to which defendants, as managers, owners, or agents, willfully or recklessly neglected or refused to sufficiently repair dangerous habitability violations, including water bug infestation, mold contamination, dysfunctional plumbing systems, dysfunctional electrical systems, improper fire protection systems, and improper ventilation, which caused Plaintiff to experience immense stress, anxiety, depression, fearfulness, worry, loss of appetite, loss of sleep, nightmares, disgust, shame, and embarrassment.

 

The causes of action are:

1. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 1942.4

2. TORTIOUS BREACH OF THE WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY

3. PRIVATE NUISANCE

4. BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200, ET SEQ.

5. NEGLIGENCE

6. BREACH OF COVENANT OF QUIET ENJOYMENT

7. INTENTIONAL INFLUENCE TO VACATE.

 

 

MP Positions

 

Moving parties request an order sustaining the demurrer to the 8th Cause of Action of the Complaint, and granting the motion to strike punitive damages, on grounds including the following:

 

·         8th Cause of Action:  Nothing in Plaintiff’s allegations support an intent by the Kong owners to cause her emotional distress.  Instead of specificity, Plaintiff alleges mere legal conclusions without pleading sufficient material facts.  Plaintiff must allege she suffered severe emotional distress.

·         Punitive Damages:  The allegations are primarily boilerplate, vague, contradictory, uncertain about repairs, and without specific material facts.  The allegations are unclear as to whether the Kong Owners failed to respond to complaints or simply made inadequate repairs. Plaintiff has not plead allegations sufficient for the Eighth Cause Of Action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress – the primary cause of action which Plaintiff alleges warrants punitive damages.

 

 

RP Positions

 

Opposing party advocates overruling and denying, or leave to amend, for reasons including the following:

 

·         8th Cause of Action:  Where a landlord’s conduct is outrageous, the tenant may institute an action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, including based on defective conditions of the premises. Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal. App. 3d 903, 921.   The lessor’s ignoring mold growth, insect infestation, were outrageous conduct. 

·         Punitive damages are supported.  In reckless disregard for the rights of Plaintiff as a tenant, defendants allowed housing habitability issues to exist without repair, despite knowing the dangerous consequences of forcing Plaintiff and her family to live among mold, infestations, and other intrusive and dangerous conditions. Sufficiently alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress, and tortious breach of the warranty of habitability, support punitive damages.  Plaintiff suffered highly unpleasant mental anguish.

 

 

Tentative Ruling

 

The demurrer is overruled.

The motion is denied.

Twenty days to answer.

 

            Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

 

A court concluded, based on similar allegations, that a tenant sufficiently stated a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, by alleging extreme emotional distress as a result of a landlord's and property manager's intentional failures to correct defective conditions of the premises.  See  Burnett v. Chimney Sweep  (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1069  (quoting Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 903, 921).  See also generally Cal. Practice Guide:  Landlord-Tenant (The Rutter Group 2022) §3:103.

 

            Punitive Damages

 

Depending on the circumstances, tenants may recover punitive damages related to breach of the warranty of habitability.  Cal. Prac. Guide: Cal. Landlord and Tenants (The Rutter Group 2022) §3:102 (citing Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 903, 916–917, 922;  and Rivera v. Sassoon (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1045, 1046-47 (allowing punitive damages, and stating:  “The building and health code violations found on the property included hazardous electrical wiring, seepage of raw sewage under the buildings due to broken plumbing, infestation of rats, termites and other vermin, broken and deteriorated doors and windows, lack of hot and cold running water, lack of heat, leaking roofs and leaking plumbing fixtures.”)).

*IF ALL PARTIES WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT ON THE COURT’S TENTATIVE RULING, PLEASE CALL THE COURTROOM AT 8:30 A.M. *