Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 24SMCV03010, Date: 2024-07-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV03010    Hearing Date: July 30, 2024    Dept: M

CASE NAME:             Kayamori v. Ross, et al. 

CASE NO.:                   24SMCV03010

MOTION:                     Motion to Strike Damages

HEARING DATE:   7/30/2024

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 David Ross and Defendant Leah Ross separately move to strike the Plaintiff’s request for special damages and consequential damages.

Defendants offers no authority suggesting that, under the pled facts of unlawful detainer, Plaintiff cannot recover consequential or special damages. Code of Civil Procedure section 1174(b) provides that, as a remedy for any unlawful detainer, the fact finder must “assess the damages occasioned to the plaintiff . . . alleged in the complaint and proved on the trial, and find the amount of any rent due . . ..” The section also provides for $600 in statutory damages “in addition actual damages, including rent found due.” Accordingly, a judgment of possession for the landlord may award the landlord all lawfully allowed back-due rent and damages pled and proved. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1174(a), (b).)

Civil Code section 1951.2 likewise provides that, in case of a breach of lease, the lessor may recover (1) the worth at the time of award of the unpaid rent which had been earned at the time of termination; (2) the worth at the time of award of the amount by which the unpaid rent which would have been earned after termination until the time of award exceeds the amount of such rental loss that the lessee proves could have been reasonably avoided; (3) the worth at the time of award of the amount by which the unpaid rent for the balance of the term after the time of award exceeds the amount of such rental loss that the lessee proves could be reasonably avoided; and (4) any other amount necessary to compensate the lessor for all the detriment proximately caused by the lessee’s failure to perform his obligations under the lease or which in the ordinary course of things would be likely to result therefrom. These statutes, read together, show an entitlement to special or consequential damages in case of a breach of lease or unlawful detainer.

The complaint alleges that Defendants breached the subject lease agreement and committed unlawful detainer. Defendants have missed rent payments required by the Lease, totaling no less than $32,208.14. (Compl., ¶ 12.) Plaintiff alleges specific rental damages of $533.33 per day. (Compl., ¶¶ 16, 19.) Plaintiff alleges that it suffered damages beyond rent, including damages for utilities (water, gas and electric) in the amount of $53.14, internet equipment in the amount of $130.00, and check fees in amount of $25.00. (Compl., ¶ 12.) Thus, the complaint establishes sufficient facts to show entitlement to typical unlawful detainer remedies, necessarily including special and consequential damages.

Accordingly, the motions are DENIED. Defendants are ordered to answer only within 10 days.