Judge Mark A. Young, Case Number: 24SMCV01272, Date: 2025-02-26 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 24SMCV01272, Date: 2025-02-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV01272 Hearing Date: February 26, 2025 Dept: M

CASE NAME: Druz, v. Green, et al.

CASE NO.: 24SMCV01272

MOTION: Motion to Strike the First Amended Complaint

HEARING DATE: 2/26/2025

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 in the first amended complaint (FAC).

As an initial matter, a request for a specific amount of punitive damages in a complaint is inappropriate. (Civ. Code § 3295(e).) To that extent, the motion to strike must be granted without leave. Second, the FAC does not plead sufficient facts to support the 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 recognized in habitability claims. The FAC provides no specific facts demonstrating Defendants’ alleged maintenance of the unhabitable conditions was intentional, willful or despicable within the meaning of section 3294.

The FAC alleges Plaintiff is a resident of the subject property, 917 Lake Street, Venice CA 90291. (FAC ¶¶ 1, 7.) The property suffered from alleged defects, including the presence of mold and other unspecified caustic conditions throughout the Property, which risked potential and/or actual exposure. (FAC ¶ 7.) Defendants failed to promptly remedy the situation and instead retaliated against and caused damage to Plaintiff. (Id.) As a result, Plaintiff’s physical and mental health suffered, including from stress, anxiety, fear, anger, and a need for future medical care. (FAC ¶9.) Defendants allegedly knew of the offending conditions and did not disclose, abate, or take steps to protect Plaintiff after being notified of the offending conditions. (FAC ¶ 10.) Defendants intentionally withheld information, refused to aid, and moved Plaintiff into the property despite their knowledge of these unabated conditions. (Id.)

From these allegations, the FAC provides no support for an inference of an intent to harm, of despicable conduct, or of any malicious, oppressive or fraudulent conduct by Defendants. At worst, the FAC alleges that Defendants failed to promptly remedy the presence of mold. (FAC ¶7.) Plaintiff provides no specific facts regarding Defendants’ alleged knowledge of the mold, what information Defendants withheld, or how Defendants allegedly “retaliated” against Plaintiffs. (Id.) Without such facts, the Court cannot conclude that Defendants’ actions are despicable, malicious, oppressive or fraudulent.

Caselaw requires a higher degree of factual specificity and reprehensible conduct to plead a punitive damages claim. For example, in Stoiber, the court found that a plaintiff could recover punitive damages for numerous persistent uninhabitable conditions that 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.) In comparison, this action raises no analogous facts. There are no specific facts about the uninhabitable condition, beyond an allegation that there is mold present at the property. There are no facts showing Defendants’ maintenance of mold could be considered despicable here, as there are no specific facts showing a persistent failure to remedy the conditions or other extreme conduct akin to constructive eviction.

The Court is not inclined to grant leave to amend. Plaintiff previously was given an opportunity to add facts concerning the punitive damages claim. Plaintiff did not take the opportunity to add particularized factual details which might justify a punitive damages award. In the amended complaint, Plaintiff only added a single generic allegation, on information and belief, that Defendants “know of the offending conditions and did not disclose, abate, or take steps to protect the Plaintiff after being repeatedly notified of the offending conditions; instead, Defendants intentionally withheld information refused, to aid, and moved Plaintiff into the Property despite knowing of, and not abating, these conditions.” (FAC ¶ 10.) In order to be granted leave to amend, Plaintiff must make an offer of proof at the hearing of sufficient specific facts which might support an award. For these reasons, the motion is GRANTED without leave to amend.