Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 24SMCV04600, Date: 2025-04-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV04600    Hearing Date: April 15, 2025    Dept: M

CASE NAME:             Gonzalez v. Scott Properties Group Inc., et al. 

CASE NO.:                   24SMCV04600

MOTION:                     Motion to Strike Punitive Damages

HEARING DATE:   4/15/2025

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 

Defendant Scott Properties Group Inc. moves to strike the request for punitive damages in Plaintiff Christian Gonzalez’s Complaint. Defendant argues that the complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to support the prayer of punitive damages.

In order to state a claim for punitive damages, a complaint must set forth the elements as stated in the general punitive damage statute, Civil Code Section 3294. (Coll. Hosp. v. Superior Ct. (1994) 9 Cal.4th 704, 721.) The complaint must allege that defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice. (Civ. Code § 3294 (a).) “In order to survive a motion to strike an allegation of punitive damages, the ultimate facts showing an entitlement to such relief must be pled by a plaintiff. [Citations.] In passing on the correctness of a ruling on a motion to strike, judges read allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth. [Citations.] In ruling on a motion to strike, courts do not read allegations in isolation. [Citation.]” (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.) “The mere allegation an intentional tort was committed is not sufficient to warrant an award of punitive damages. [Citation.] Not only must there be circumstances of oppression, fraud or malice, but facts must be alleged in the pleading to support such a claim. [Citation.]” (Grieves v. Superior Ct. (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166, fn. omitted.) 

Civil Code 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.” Despicable is a powerful term used to describe circumstances that are “base,” “vile,” or “contemptible.” (Coll. Hosp., supra, 9 Cal.4th at 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.; see, e.g., Angie M. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th at 1221—1222 [finding vile, base, or contemptible conduct in unlawful seduction and sexual abuse when a doctor engaged in sexual intercourse with a 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].)

Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages arises from allegations of habitability negligence. Courts have found habitability torts may support punitive damages when the facts show malice, oppression or fraud. For instance, in Stoiber, the tenant plaintiff complained of numerous, persistent uninhabitable conditions and she repeatedly notified the defendants of such. (Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 903, 912-913.) These included: 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 hazards. (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.) However, Stoiber was decided prior to the change in section 3294 which requires the additional component of despicable conduct absent intent to injure. Later cases still support the imposition of punitive damages where the elements of malice are proven. In Erlach, for example, punitive damages were well-stated in habitability action where the landlord 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, 1299; see Garcia v. Myllyla¿(2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 990, 999 [substantial evidence supported imposition of punitive damages where, in order to avoid inspection of the building, defendant falsely told a regulatory department that he was not renting the building and that it was occupied only by family members; such fraud enabled his violations of habitability standards causing Plaintiffs’ injuries].)  

The complaint provides the following facts in support of the negligence cause of action, which is the sole cause of action asserting a claim for punitive damages. Plaintiff alleges that he signed a lease agreement with Defendants on June 8, 2022, for the subject property located at 935 Indiana Ave., Venice, CA 90291. (Compl., ¶ 8.) On September 25, 2022, Plaintiff complained to Defendants regarding suspected mold growth as there was a water leak and water damage in the kitchen. (¶11.) Defendants took no curative action in response to this complaint. (Id.) On October 28, 2022, Plaintiff complained once again regarding the water damage and his concern regarding suspected mold growth. (¶ 12.) Defendants again ignored this complaint. (Id.) On March 2, 2023, Plaintiff complained again regarding water damage from rain going into his bathroom ceiling and requested a mold assessment. (¶ 13.) In response, Defendants sent a handyman to cut the wall open and patch the area; but no remediation or mold testing was performed. (Id.) On March 15, 2023, after more water damage in the bathroom, Plaintiff again demanded a mold test and proper remediation, but Defendants ignored this request. (¶ 14.) Plaintiff lodged the same complaints on March 22, 2023. (¶ 15.) On March 23, 2023, Defendants had a vendor perform a mold inspection but did not share any reports with Plaintiff. (¶ 16.) The following week, Plaintiff complained again about the water damage in the bathroom, but to no avail. (¶17.) Plaintiff also advised Defendants that, in light of Defendants’ failures and refusals to perform repairs, he was being constructively evicted. (Id.) By May 30, 2023, Defendants finally agreed to meet with Plaintiff to discuss the mold issue in the Property. (¶ 18.) In July 2023, mold remediation began at the ADU of the Property. (¶ 19.) Plaintiff was not relocated to a safe location while repairs took place, and the mold within the main home was not addressed. (Id.) By August 1, 2023, Plaintiff confirmed his injuries were related to his exposure to mold in the home. (¶ 20.) Plaintiff hired his own mold inspector to conduct a mold inspection which resulted in finding higher levels of mold inside the home and in the crawl space underneath the home. (¶ 21.) Plaintiff’s personal belongings were also destroyed. (¶22.) Thus, by mid-August 2023, Plaintiff was constructively evicted from the Property. (¶23.) Defendants also refused to return Plaintiff’s security deposit. (¶24.)

According to the complaint, Defendants failed to maintain the property or cure the significant habitability issues with the Property, including: 1. Water leaks; 2. Toxic mold growth; 3. Exposed ceilings and walls; and 4. Elevated moisture levels. (Compl., ¶ 25.) Plaintiff notified Defendants regarding the problems on multiple occasions, but the defects went uncured. (¶28.) Defendants knew that the Premises were a danger to Plaintiff’s safety yet failed to cure, properly investigate, and once notified, failed to remedy the issues. (¶ 29.)

Furthermore, Defendants breached the duties owed to Plaintiff by failing to exercise reasonable care, skill, prudence and diligence in performing their obligations under the Lease by: 1) failing to investigate and cure issues properly, or timely, or at all, despite multiple complaints by Plaintiff; 2) negligently hiring and failing to educate their agents, who Defendants knew were unfit and or incompetent; 3) failing to supervise their agents who refused and or improperly repaired, refused to investigate, intimidated, and created hazardous conditions/nuisances; and 4) misrepresenting the safety and condition of the property regarding when repairs would be made, the quality of repairs to be made, and the condition of the Property. (Compl., ¶ 61.) Defendants failed to make repairs to the Property. (¶ 62.) Defendants allegedly engaged in gross negligence and wanton and reckless disregard when, with knowledge that their conduct would cause harm to Plaintiff, they intentionally failed and refused to perform the necessary repairs after receiving multiple notices to comply from DPH. (Id.)

The above allegations do not rise to the level of despicable or intentional conduct required by section 3294. Unlike Stoiber, Plaintiff does not allege numerous and known uninhabitable conditions with the property which, despite notice, Defendants intentionally refused to even attempt to repair. The facts show that Defendants made multiple repair attempts, albeit negligently and with incompetent workers. Such allegedly negligent conduct does not meet the intentional or despicable conduct required by section 3294. Thus, further facts are required to support the conclusory allegations of malice and oppression.

Further, the allegations of negligent misrepresentations do not support the claim for punitive damages. Section 3294(c) defines “Fraud” as “an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.” (Emphasis added.) First, the representations are not pled with specificity, as required for pleading fraud or negligent misrepresentation. (Small v. Fritz Companies, Inc. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 167, 184.) Defendants allegedly misrepresented the “safety and condition” of the property including when repairs would be made and the quality of the repairs. (Compl., ¶ 61.) The complaint provides no details on who made the representations, what was specifically represented, when the representations were made, where the representations were made, and by what means the representations were made. The complaint merely alleges that “on several occasions,” around the time that Plaintiff lodged complaints about the habitability of the Property, Defendants made representations of fact concerning the remediation efforts and safety hazards. (¶63.) At best, the complaint alleges that “Defendants assured Plaintiff that the Property was safe and habitable.” (¶ 65.) These facts therefore lack specificity. Without the required specificity, the court cannot determine whether Plaintiff’s alleged reliance on the representations caused or contributed to his harm from the violations of the habitability standards. Further, the allegations suggest that the Defendants made negligent misrepresentations, that is, without the required knowledge or intent to deprive Plaintiff of legal rights or cause injury. The complaint makes clear that Defendants merely had no reason to know or believe the representations were true at the time they were made, since they had no reason to believe the Property was at any time habitable due to their failure to perform the required remedial work properly. (¶¶ 63-64.) The representations and assurance made by Defendants were done with malice and oppression and with a “complete disregard for the truth of what was being represented.” (¶ 68.) These allegations do not show the facts of Defendants’ knowledge of falsity of their alleged assurances, but rather that Defendants assured Plaintiff without a reasonable basis. Therefore, further facts are required to support the claim on fraud theory.

Accordingly, the motion to strike is GRANTED with 10 days leave to amend.