Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 24SMCV01287, Date: 2024-10-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV01287    Hearing Date: October 10, 2024    Dept: M

CASE NAME:             807 Huntley LLC v. Altuwaijri

CASE NO.:                   24SMCV01287

MOTION:                  Motion to Strike Cross-Complaint  

HEARING DATE:   10/10/2024

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

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant 807 Huntley LLC moves to strike the claim for punitive damages alleged in the Cross-Complainant by Defendant/Cross-Complainant Ahmed Altuwaijri.

To recover punitive damages for malice or oppression, plaintiff must plead facts supporting an intent to harm or “despicable conduct” carried about with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others. (Civ. Code §3294(c).) Despicable is a powerful term used to describe circumstances that are “base,” “vile,” or “contemptible.” (Coll. Hosp., supra, 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.” (Ibid.) This includes only truly egregious behavior. (See, e.g., Angie M. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1221—1222 [vile, base, or contemptible conduct found where doctor engaged in sexual intercourse with minor, plying the minor with drugs and alcohol, and paying the minor to procure illegal substances for him]; Pfeifer v. John Crane, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1280 [finding despicable conduct when a manufacturer “fully understood that asbestos dust endangered workers, but did not issue warnings to customers” until much later and using the products in ways that generated considerable asbestos dust].) 

Cross-Complainant alleges that he is the tenant of the real property commonly known as 807 Huntley Drive, #807, West Hollywood, California, 90068, which is owned by Cross-Defendant. (CC ¶¶ 1-2.) Courts have recognized that a tenant may recover punitive damages against a landlord for wrongful eviction, trespass, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, among other theories. (Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood Apartments, (2009) 171 Cal. App. 4th 1004, 1055.) For instance, a landlord’s intentional or malicious failure to repair can support a claim for punitive damages. (Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 903, 920.) In¿Stoiber, the plaintiff complained of numerous uninhabitable conditions that she repeatedly notified the landlord of, that the landlord had actual and full knowledge of the conditions, but the landlord intentionally made no effort to repair the dangerous conditions. (Id. 912-913, 920.) The dangerous conditions included a heavy cockroach infestation, broken interior walls, broken deteriorated flooring on front porch, falling ceiling, fused¿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 the repeated 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, 921.) Furthermore, a nuisance cause of action also could support a claim for exemplary damages if “intentional”. (Id., at 920.)

The Cross-Complaint fails to allege sufficient facts showing despicable or intentional conduct required to recover punitive damages. The Cross-Complaint only provides generalized allegations that during the tenancy, Cross-Complainant discovered plumbing issues on the Property, including water leaks and clogged pipes, which rendered the Property untenantable and uninhabitable. (CC ¶ 5.) Despite notice of the condition, Cross-Defendants allegedly failed to “promptly” remedy the situation. (Id.) This failure to “promptly” remedy vague plumbing leaks does not show Cross-Defendant’s intended to harm Cross-Complainant, or any “despicable” conduct warranting punitive damages. For example, there are no facts showing the dangerous nature of the plumbing issues, such that the court may conclude that Cross-Defendant has willfully and consciously disregarded the tenant’s rights and safety. Indeed, there are no specific facts in support of the generic allegations of malice (CC ¶ 25) or of tenant harassment (¶ 27). As such, further facts must be pled to support the punitive damages claim.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED with leave to amend.  Cross-Complainant has 20 days to file any amended cross-complaint.