Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 21STCV41620, Date: 2022-08-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV41620    Hearing Date: August 18, 2022    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: August 18, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Demurrer to First Amended Complaint and Motion to Strike

Moving Party: Defendant Reevolution

Responding Party: Plaintiff Victor Segura

T/R:     DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER IS OVERRULED.

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE IS GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

PLAINTIFF TO FILE AND SERVE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING. DEFENDANT TO FILE AND SERVE A RESPONSE WITHIN 30 DAYS THEREAFTER.

            DEFENDANT TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

            On March 7, 2022, Plaintiff Victor Segura filed the operative first amended complaint against Defendants Catie Dinsmoor, Chriss Turcott and Reevolution, asserting twelve causes of action arising from Plaintiff’s tenancy at a single-family residence owned by Defendants. Plaintiff alleges Defendants rented out the additional dwelling unit (ADU) on the property, causing various disruptions to Plaintiff’s tenancy.

ANALYSIS

A demurrer to a complaint may be taken to the whole complaint or to any of the causes of action in it.  (CCP § 430.50(a).)  A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the truth of its factual allegations or the plaintiff's ability to prove those allegations.  (Picton v. Anderson Union High Sch. Dist. (1996) 50 Cal. App. 4th 726, 732.)  The court must treat as true the complaint's material factual allegations, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.  (Id. at 732-33.)  The complaint is to be construed liberally to determine whether a cause of action has been stated.  (Id. at 733.)

Defendant Reevolution demurs to the third cause of action for trespass and ninth cause of action for violation of LAMC § 45.30, et seq.

A. Third Cause of Action for Trespass

“The elements of a common law trespass are (1) the plaintiff’s ownership or control of the property; (2) the defendant’s intentional, reckless, or negligent entry on the property; (3) lack of permission to enter the property or acts in excess of the permission; (4) actual harm; and (5) the defendant’s conduct as a substantial factor in causing the harm.” (Ralphs Grocery Co. v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 8 (2010) 113 Cal.Rptr.3d 88, 93, reversed on other grounds by 55 Cal.4th 1083 (2012).)  

            Plaintiff alleges Defendants rented the ADU to Defendant Reevolution, a company that houses recent parolees, without a certificate of occupancy. Plaintiff alleges that tenants of Reevolution, parole officers, and other individuals frequently walked through Plaintiff’s backyard and side gate to access the ADU.

            Defendant argues Plaintiff’s claim for trespass fails because the backyard and side gate are clearly common areas for all tenants. This argument is unpersuasive. Plaintiff alleges the backyard and side gate are areas in which he has a leasehold interest; the Court must treat Plaintiff’s allegations as true at this stage of the case.

            The demurrer to the third cause of action is OVERRULED.

B. Ninth Cause of Action for Violation of LAMC § 45.30, et seq.

Article 5.3 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code prohibits tenant harassment. “An aggrieved tenant under this article, or any person, organization, or entity who will fairly and adequately represent the interests of an aggrieved tenant(s) under this article, may institute civil proceedings as provided by law, against any landlord violating any of the provisions of this article and any person who aids, facilitates, and/or incites another to violate the provisions of this article, regardless of whether the rental unit remains occupied or has been vacated due to harassment.” (LAMC § 45.35(A).)

Defendant asserts that the ninth cause of action fails because Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing Defendant aided in any harassment. Plaintiff alleges Defendant’s operation of temporary housing facility aided the landlords in harassing Plaintiff. This is sufficient to allege a violation of LAMC Article 5.3.

The demurrer to the ninth cause of action is OVERRULED.

C. Motion to Strike

“Any party, within the time allowed to response to a pleading, may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part" of that pleading. (CCP § 435(b)(1).) “The Court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false or improper matter asserted in any pleading; (b) Strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the Court." (CCP § 436.) The Court's authority to strike improper pleadings includes the power to strike those pleadings that are "not filed in conformity with its prior ruling." (Janis v. California State Lottery Com (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 824, 829.) 

Punitive damages are available in noncontract cases where the defendant is guilty of “oppression, fraud, or malice.”  (Civil Code § 3294(a).)  Conclusory allegations are insufficient to support a claim for punitive damages.  (See, e.g., Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hospital (1989) 214 Cal. App. 3d 590, 620.)  However, “the stricken language must be read not in isolation, but in the context of the facts alleged in the rest of petitioner's complaint.”  (Perkins v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal. App. 3d 1, 6.)

Defendant moves to strike Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages on the ground that Plaintiff has failed to allege Defendant acted with malice, oppression, or fraud. Plaintiff states causes of action for trespass, nuisance and IIED against Defendant. Punitive damages are available for these causes of action, but entitlement to punitive damages must be plead with specificity. Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to support punitive damages against Reevolution. That Reevolution failed to cease operations after Plaintiff’s request does not in itself establish oppression, fraud, or malice.

The motion to strike is GRANTED.