Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 24SMCV00500, Date: 2024-08-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV00500    Hearing Date: August 7, 2024    Dept: I

The motion to strike punitive damages is DENIED, but on narrow grounds.  This is a claim by plaintiff that defendant caused damage to plaintiff’s unit by overwatering the plants.  Plaintiff alleges that the overwatering caused the water to intrude into plaintiff’s unit and that defendant did not care or stop.  The court does not think that this would be enough for punitive damages.  Overwatering is not the kind of malicious, oppressive, or fraudulent conduct that would give rise to punitive damages.  The area where plaintiff’s cause of action has a bit of relatively weak legs is the notion that plaintiff allegedly told defendant of the problem and how important it was that the problem be fixed—that is, the results of the water intrusion—and that plaintiff would do so if necessary because the failure to do so would make the situation significantly worse.  Plaintiff contends that defendant assured plaintiff that defendant would take care of it.  As a result of that promise, plaintiff allegedly did not fix the problem.  But rather than take care of it, the allegation is that defendant continued to engage in the overwatering and did nothing to fix the problem or the damage.  That allegedly caused the value of plaintiff’s property to decline further and more quickly.  According to plaintiff, defendant made the promise to repair even though defendant had no intention of repairing anything and that defendant made the promise so as to forestall plaintiff from undertaking timely repairs.  Frankly, the court doubts that mental state or that there is any evidence of it that would rise to the level of fraud sufficient to warrant punitive damages.  Plaintiff would need to show not only that defendant made a promise to fix the problem and had no intention of doing anything, but also that the motive for doing so was to cause harm to plaintiff.  That is a heavy load.  But it is a better load to be tested on summary adjudication.  While the court cannot weigh the evidence at that stage, the court can at least see whether plaintiff has any evidence and whether that evidence, if credited, could lead a reasonable jury to believe by clear and convincing evidence that there was sufficient fraud.  And, after some reasonable discovery, it might well be that plaintiff is able to garner sufficient evidence to get to a jury and to convince a jury at trial.  So this is a close one, but the court believes there is enough here for pleading purposes.