Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 24SMCV02867, Date: 2024-09-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV02867    Hearing Date: September 17, 2024    Dept: M

CASE NAME:             Toulon Gardens HOA v. Redwood Holdings, et al. 

CASE NO.:                   24SMCV02867 

MOTION:                  Motion to Strike the Complaint  

HEARING DATE:   9/17/2024

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

Defendant Robert Ames moves to strike portions of Plaintiff Toulon Gardens Homeowners Association's complaint seeking: (1) monetary damages; and (2) attorney’s fees.  Defendant argues that the damages requests are premised on provisions of the HOA bylaws. Defendant notes that he is allegedly a resident/tenant of an owner (Redwoods Holding), and not an owner or party to the bylaws or any other contract with Plaintiff.

However, Plaintiff’s damages are not entirely premised on provisions in the bylaws. The complaint alleges that Ames caused a nuisance, which does not require Ames to be an owner or directly a party to the Bylaws. Here, Plaitniff must allege a non-trespassory interference with the private use and enjoyment of the plaintiff’s property. (Civ. Code, §§ 3479 – 3481; San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 893, 938.)

“[T]he elements of an action for private nuisance [are, f]irst, the plaintiff must prove an interference with his use and enjoyment of its property. Second, the invasion of the plaintiff's interest in the use and enjoyment of the land must be substantial, i.e., it caused the plaintiff to suffer substantial actual damage. Third, the interference with the protected interest must not only be substantial, it must also be unreasonable, i.e., it must be of such a nature, duration, or amount as to constitute unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of the land. [¶] Substantial damage and unreasonableness are to be judged by an objective standard.”

(Today's IV, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 1137, 1176.) 

The Complaint alleges damages caused by Defendants’ maintenance of a nuisance. Plaintiff alleges that starting on July 12, 2023, it provided statutory notices in an attempt to enter the subject unit, Unit 102, in order to investigate a water leak. (Compl., ¶¶ 39-42.) Ames failed to allow access to the unit in violation of Plaintiff’s private property rights. Ames changed the locks and refused to provide the landlord with a copy of the key nor did he allow the landlord access to change or replace the locks. (Compl., ¶ 43.) There has been a loss of hot water to other units due to an issue within Unit 102. (Id.) The HOA needs access to the Unit to make repairs and to restore hot water to the surrounding units. (Id.) The complaint expressly alleges that by continuing to maintain the violations at the property defendant is causing a nuisance injuring, or threatening injury to, the Association and to the residents of the Association. (Id. ¶¶ 54-55.) The Complaint further alleges that Ames knew that if they did not remove the violations from the Property other owners could no longer quietly enjoy their homes and the common area. (Id. ¶ 56.) As a result of the nuisance, the Association has suffered property damage and economic loss of at least $35,000. (Id. ¶ 58.)

As to punitive damages, “[a] nuisance can be either a negligent or an intentional tort. (Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 903, 920.)  “If the latter, then exemplary damages are recoverable.” (Id.) The complaint alleges that Ames’s above acts and omissions have been intentional, deliberate and willful, and they were performed knowing they would create a nuisance. (Compl., ¶ 57.) His refusal to remove the listed violations were willful and done with conscious disregard of the Association’s rights and subjected the Association to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of its rights and the rights of the residents of the Association. (Id ¶ 59.) Therefore, the claim for punitive damages is sufficiently supported by the pleadings.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.