Judge Malcolm Mackey, Case 22STCV23653 2023-04-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 22STCV23653, Date: 2023-04-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV23653 Hearing Date: April 27, 2023 Dept: 55

GONZALEZ v. LINDA V. ARMOR AS TRUSTEE 22STCV23653

Hearing Date: 4/27/23, Dept. 55

#10: MOTION TO STRIKE ALL REFERENCES TO PUNITIVE DAMAGES AND HARASSMENT IN FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT.

Notice: Okay

Opposition

MP: Defendants TAYLOR EQUITIES 17, LLC, RHET APARTMENTS, LLC, RI III APARTMENTS, LLC, AND RH CENTENNIAL APARTMENTS, LLC.

RP: Plaintiffs

Summary

On 7/21/22, plaintiffs filed a Complaint.

On 1/9/23, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint, alleging that plaintiffs are tenants at 625 S. Burlington Ave., Los Angeles, which has uninhabitable conditions, including cockroach infestations, widespread mold contamination, open exposure to raw sewage, plumbing issues, faulty and insufficient utilities, structural defects, and deficient security.

The causes of action are:

1. BREACH OF THE WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY

2. NEGLIGENCE

3. BREACH OF QUIET ENJOYMENT

4. NUISANCE

5. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1942.4

6. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

7. VIOLATION OF LOS ANGELES MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 45.30, ET SEQ. TENANT ANTI-HARASSMENT ORDINANCE

8. VIOLATION OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE, SECTION 17200

9. VIOLATION OF THE FAIR HOUSING AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1988 – 42 SECTIONS 3601, ET SEQ.

10. VIOLATION OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT (FEHA)

11. VIOLATION OF THE UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT – CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 51, et seq.

12. VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA DISABLED PERSONS ACT – CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 54-55.2.

MP Positions

Moving party requests an order striking from the First Amended Complaint all references to punitive damages and harassment, on grounds including the following:

· Plaintiffs failed to plead specific facts of oppression fraud and malice and to plead the identity and ratification of the despicable conduct by an officer, director or managing agent. (Civ. Code, § 3294 (a).) Civil Code § 3294(b)).

· “[R]efusing to make repairs” does not rise to the level of despicable conduct.

· No cause of action for harassment or discrimination based on sexual orientation is pleaded in connection with allegations of harassment. The one reference to “harassment” is not supported by the allegations and relates to irrelevant matter.

RP Positions

Opposing parties advocate denying, for reasons including the following:

· Defendants were aware of the bedbug infestation and willfully denied assistance to its tenants, as it was also aware of the mold, plumbing, and other unhabitable issues and intentionally failed to provide Plaintiffs relief.

· Plaintiffs have adequately alleged the ultimate facts that Defendants acted with a knowing and deliberate state of mind with conscious disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights which sustains an award of punitive damages. Defendants’ despicable conduct was willful and showed a conscious disregard for Plaintiffs’ safety.

· Defendants are in a position of authority as landlords and are aware of the probable dangerous consequences of their conduct and willfully and deliberately fail to avoid the consequences.

· The allegations of harassment due to sexual orientation, are to support the intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Tentative Ruling

The motion is denied.

Twenty days to answer.

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, e.g., 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.”); and Erlach v. Sierra Asset Servicing, LLC (2014) 226 CA4th 1281, 1299 (tortious violation of breach of warranty of habitability against former landlord that cut off all utilities.)).

“A nuisance may be either a negligent or an intentional tort. If the latter, then exemplary damages are recoverable….” Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal. App. 3d 903, 920 (Appellant has pleaded sufficient facts to support .. exemplary damages. She alleged that defendant had actual knowledge of defective conditions in the premises including leaking sewage…” and alleged acting with full knowledge of the consequences of damage being caused to plaintiff).

Even negligence can support punitive damages, where harm to tenants is probable. A tort involving negligence, together with conduct or omissions that one knows or should know probably will result in harm, can support an award of punitive damages. Nolin v. National Convenience Stores, Inc. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 279, 286-88 (defendant's inattention to danger showed a complete lack of concern for the likelihood of personal injuries at defendant’s premises).

Officer, Director or Managing Agent

More detail, like identifications of persons, is not required to satisfy requirements of alleging punitive damages. Alleging that persons acted "with the permission and consent" of all defendants including corporate defendants is sufficient to plead corporate employer liability for punitive damages. O'Hara v. Western Seven Trees Corp. (1977) 75 Cal. App. 3d 798, 806 (“it was alleged that the misrepresentations were made by persons who acted ‘with the permission and consent’ of all the defendants. For the purpose of meeting a general demurrer, this was a sufficient allegation that the corporations had authorized their agent's acts; a corporation is liable for punitive damages when it authorizes the wrongful act.”); Kisesky v. Carpenters’ Trust (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 222, 235 (allegations of agents acting in scope of employment with employer’s permission and consent were sufficient). See also generally Scannell v. County of Riverside (1984) 152 Cal. App. 3d 596, 614 (insufficiency where a complete failure to plead acts done with the knowledge or under express direction or ratification of officer, director or managing agent); United W. Medical Ctrs. v. Sup. Ct. (1996) 42 Cal. App. 4th 500, 505 n. 2 (dicta re sufficiency being questionable where a complete failure to allege authorization, ratification, or conduct by managerial agent).

Harassment

Sexual-orientation harassment is relevant to the alleged claim for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.

"'Matter that is essential to a cause of action should not be struck and it is error to do so.'" Ferraro v. Camarlinghi (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 509, 528 (quoting Quiroz v. Seventh Ave. Center (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1256, 1281).

Employment actions can involve outrageous conduct. Murray v. Oceanside Unif. Sch. Dist. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4^th 1338, 1362-63 (harassment based upon sexual orientation); Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hosp. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 590, 618 (properly pled sexual harassment); Robinson v. Hewlett-Packard Corp. (1986) 183 Cal. App. 3d 1108, 1127-30 (race discrimination can be outrageous), disapproved on other grounds in Rojo v. Kliger (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 65, 81-82; Rulon-Miller v. I.B.M. Corp. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 241, 255 (employer stated to employee that she could not see her romantic friend or she would face employment termination), overruled on other grounds by Guz v. Bechtel Nat’l, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 351; Myers v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1426-27 (sexual harassment may constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress).