Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 24SMCV06296, Date: 2025-03-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV06296    Hearing Date: March 6, 2025    Dept: I

This is a motion to strike, and it is DENIED.  Essentially, plaintiff contends that she rented a unit from the defense and was exposed to dangerous levels of toxic mold and suffered injuries therefrom.  

The court came very close to granting the motion.  But the court notes that in the context of a pleading motion like this, the court must read the complaint liberally, draw all inferences in plaintiff’s favor, and assume all allegations to be true.  The court agrees with the defense that if defendant did the inspections as claimed using licensed inspectors and those inspectors found no mold, and that it did them promptly, then there is no basis for punitive damages.  Even if defendant’s inspectors were sloppy and in error, that is not oppression, fraud, or malice sufficient to warrant punitive damages. 

But plaintiff might be arguing something else.  Turning to the complaint, rather than defendant’s recitation of it, plaintiff contends that defendant downplayed the issue by claiming that the smell was only “old glue.”  Plaintiff also states that she was complaining of the problem since November 2023.  Plaintiff alleges that on June 5, 2024, she tested positive for mold and informed defendant of it.  She alleges that on June 20, 2024, she asked the defense to investigate.  She agrees that the defense stated to her that they did test, but that they found no problem.  However, she alleges that she never got the report from the defense.  She alleges that on June 24, 2024, she hired an inspector to do an inspection of the unit and that the inspector found highly elevated levels of toxic mold and that plaintiff sent that report to the defense, but the defense did not acknowledge the report.  She states that on July 13, 2024, the defense did reinspect but they never said who would do the inspection.  Plaintiff claims that contrary to the parties’ agreement, the testers showed up a day early.  The defense later claimed that the results showed all was well but never sent her the reports.  Plaintiff asserts that she requested an inspection from the city and that the city sent defendant a letter requiring remediation.

Reading the complaint broadly, plaintiff appears to allege that defendant’s report did not really show that all was well, but rather showed that there was a problem.  The court interprets the complaint that way due to the repeated allegations that although the defense did tests, plaintiff never got a copy of the results coupled with plaintiff’s assertion that her tests showed highly elevated levels, the long-time smell, the fact that she herself tested positive for elevated levels of mold, and the city’s letter requiring remediation.  If it is true that the defense did the inspections but mis-led plaintiff as to the results, that would qualify as malice or oppression or fraud.  The court is not saying that such is the case; the court is merely saying that the court cannot tell on a pleading motion.  That is better tested by way of a summary adjudication motion.  In that kind of motion, defendant can submit the actual test results if they showed normal levels of mold.  If that is the case, the court would be hard pressed to deny the motion.

For now, though, the motion to strike is DENIED.  Defendant has 30 days to answer the complaint.