Judge Mark A. Young, Case Number: 23SMCV01640, Date: 2023-12-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 23SMCV01640, Date: 2023-12-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV01640 Hearing Date: December 8, 2023 Dept: M

CASE NAME: Mastro, et al., v. Marina Admiralty Company, et al.

CASE NO.: 23SMCV01640

MOTION: Motion to Strike

HEARING DATE: 12/8/2023

Legal Standard

Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof. (CCP § 435(b)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1322(b).) The court may, upon a motion or at any time in its discretion and upon terms it deems proper: (1) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of the court. (CCP §§ 436(a)-(b); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782 [“Matter in a pleading which is not essential to the claim is surplusage; probative facts are surplusage and may be stricken out or disregarded”].)

In order to state a prima facie claim for punitive damages, a complaint must set forth the elements as stated in the general punitive damage statute, Civil Code Section 3294. (Coll. Hosp., Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 721.) These statutory elements include allegations that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice. (Civ. Code § 3294 (a).)

“In order to survive a motion to strike an allegation of punitive damages, the ultimate facts showing an entitlement to such relief must be pled by a plaintiff. [Citations.] In passing on the correctness of a ruling on a motion to strike, judges read allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth. [Citations.] In ruling on a motion to strike, courts do not read allegations in isolation. [Citation.]” (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.) “The mere allegation an intentional tort was committed is not sufficient to warrant an award of punitive damages. [Citation.] Not only must there be circumstances of oppression, fraud or malice, but facts must be alleged in the pleading to support such a claim. [Citation.]” (Grieves v. Superior Ct. (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166, fn. omitted.)

“Liberality in permitting amendment is the rule, if a fair opportunity to correct any defect has not been given.” (Angie M. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1227.) It is an abuse of discretion for the court to deny leave to amend where there is any reasonable possibility that plaintiff can state a good cause of action. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.) The burden is on plaintiff to show in what manner plaintiff can amend the complaint, and how that amendment will change the legal effect of the pleading. (Id.)

Analysis

Defendant Marina Admiralty Co. moves to strike Plaintiffs Thomas Mastro and Andrea Almasi’s claim for punitive damages. Here, Plaintiffs do not allege any acts of malice, oppression or fraud as required to support a claim of punitive damages under Civil Code section 3294. Malice is conduct “intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff,” or “despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.” (Id.) Despicable is a powerful term used to describe circumstances that are “base,” “vile,” or “contemptible.” (See Coll. Hosp. v. Superior Ct. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 726.) Oppression, under section 3294, also requires “despicable” conduct. Thus, the statute “plainly indicates that absent an intent to injure the plaintiff, ‘malice’ requires more than a ‘willful and conscious’ disregard of the plaintiffs' interests. The additional component of ‘despicable conduct’ must be found.” (Id.)

Under California law, a landlord’s failure to repair can support a claim for punitive damages. (Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 903, 920.) In Stoiber, the Court found that the tenant had pled sufficient facts to support her prayer for exemplary damages because she alleged that the landlord had actual knowledge of defective conditions in the premises, including leaking sewage, deteriorated flooring, falling ceiling, leaking roof, broken windows, and other unsafe and dangerous conditions, and that the landlord failed to repair them. (Id., see also Erlach¿v. Sierra Asset Servicing, LLC¿(2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1299 [alleged facts supported a claim when the landlord-defendant turned off tenant's utilities to prevent the tenant from returning to the property].)

Defendants are the owners and/or property managers of an apartment complex, Mariners Village, where Plaintiffs were tenants. (Compl., ¶¶1 1-5) Plaintiffs allege that there were various habitability issues with their residence, such as plumbing, mold, and electrical issues. (¶¶ 9-11.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to correct the following habitability issues: 1) mold, asbestos, and presence of illegal and caustic chemicals; 2) water & leaking plumbing; 3) electrical wiring not up to code; 4) vermin, rats and bugs; and 5) rubbish. (¶11.) Further, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants had unapproved and illegal construction, including unpermitted plumbing, and underwent efforts to illegally evict Plaintiffs, including destruction and reduction of amenities and services, threats, verbal assaults, discrimination, harassment, and maltreatment. (Id.) Plaintiffs repeatedly notified the Defendants and their agent about the habitability violations and illegal construction, but Defendants failed to correct the issues. (¶ 12.) Defendants allegedly had written notice of these issues from Plaintiffs and the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety. (¶¶12-14.)

Defendants attempted to fix the matters in September 2022. (Compl., ¶ 15.) Defendants then engaged in illegal construction and demolition of the Subject Property in an effort to remedy the caustic conditions, which ultimately spread the damage throughout the unit. (¶ 16.) Defendants received written and video documentation of the conditions 13 throughout 2022, and into January 2023. (¶ 17.) In January 2023, Defendants relocated the Plaintiffs to a different unit while repairs were again attempted. (¶ 18.) Defendants failed to remediate the unsafe and unhabitable conditions. (¶ 20.) Defendants continued to demand rent from Plaintiffs despite these conditions. (¶¶ 15, 19.)

The above allegations do not show any conduct by Defendant that was either intended to cause injury or carried out with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others. Further, Plaintiffs fail to meet the increased pleading standard of “despicable conduct” in order to establish malice or oppression. Plaintiffs do not even attempt to allege, as matters of fact, that Defendants acted with malice, oppression or fraud. At worst, Defendants allegedly engaged in negligent conduct by failing to repair the habitability conditions. Defendants even attempted to repair the habitability conditions, which undercuts any extrinsic claims of malice or oppression. Therefore, further facts are required to support punitive damages.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to strike is GRANTED with ten days leave to amend.