Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 24SMCV01272, Date: 2024-07-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV01272    Hearing Date: July 2, 2024    Dept: M

CASE NAME:             Druz v. Green, et al. 

CASE NO.:                   24SMCV01272

MOTION:                  Motion to Strike

HEARING DATE:   5/21/2024

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”].) 

“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 

Defendants James Green and Joyce Green move to strike Plaintiff Danielle Druz’s  request for punitive damages.

Here, the complaint does not plead sufficient facts to support a claim of punitive damages under Civil Code section 3294. Section 3294 defines malice as 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.” (Coll. Hosp. v. Superior Ct. (1994) 9 Cal.4th 704, 726.) 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.)

Plaintiff’s generic allegations concerning Defendants’ negligence do not rise to the level of despicable conduct for malice that has been recognized in habitability claims. The complaint generally alleges that Plaintiff is a tenant at the subject property, and that the dwelling unit “suffered from defects that render it untenantable. Most serious amongst these defects is the presence of mold, caustic-conditions, throughout the Property created an untenantable situation as well as potential and/or actual exposure. Despite notice of the condition by third parties, Defendants have failed to promptly remedy situation, and instead retaliated against and caused damage to Plaintiff.” (Compl., ¶7.) The Complaint then provides for conclusory allegations of the elements of negligence, breach of the warranty of habitability, and an anti-harassment ordinance. Each cause of action generally claims that Defendants failed to timely address habitability issues. (See Compl., ¶¶ 12, 18, 22.) Caselaw requires a higher degree of factual specificity and reprehensible conduct to plead punitive damages claim.

 For example, in Stoiber, the court found that a plaintiff could recover punitive damages for numerous persistent uninhabitable conditions where she repeatedly notified the defendants. (Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 903, 921.) The plaintiff alleged specific conditions, including heavy cockroach infestation, broken interior walls, broken deteriorated flooring on front porch, falling ceiling, deteriorated, overfused electrical wiring, lack of proper plumbing connection to sewage system in bathroom, sewage under bathroom floor, leaking roof, broken windows, and fire hazard. (Ibid.) Despite notice, the defendants knowingly, intentionally and willfully failed to correct the defective conditions by not even attempting to repair the defects, except on one occasion where they sent a plumber in response to a complaint regarding the toilet. (Id. at 913.) In Erlach, punitive damages were appropriately pled against a landlord that had turned off tenant's utilities and prevented the tenant from returning to the property. (Erlach v. Sierra Asset Servicing, LLC¿(2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1281.)

The complaint does not allege any facts showing that the maintenance of the unhabitable conditions was intentional or willful. Moreover, negligent maintenance of a premises does not sound in malice or oppression, absent further facts showing an intent to harm or truly despicable conduct.

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to strike is GRANTED with leave to amend.