Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV06563, Date: 2022-10-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV06563    Hearing Date: October 14, 2022    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: October 14, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Demurrer to Complaint and Motion to Strike

Moving Party: Defendants Santee Village Condominium Association and Action Property Management, Inc.

Responding Party: Plaintiff Maia Holtzman

T/R:     DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER IS OVERRULED.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE IS DENIED.

DEFENDANTS TO FILE AND SERVE ANSWERS TO THE COMPLAINT WITHIN 15 DAYS OF NOTICE RULING.

DEFENDANTS 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 February 23, 2022, Plaintiff Maia Holtzman sued Defendants Santee Village Condominium Association and Action Property Management, Inc., asserting causes of action for (1) breach of the covenants, conditions, and restrictions; (2) breach of fiduciary duty; (3) nuisance; and (4) negligence. Plaintiff alleges Defendants repeatedly failed to remedy water damage in her unit, resulting mold related health problems.

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.)

            Defendants demur to the third and fourth causes of action.

A. Fourth Cause of Action for Negligence

The elements for negligence are: (1) a legal duty owed to the plaintiff to use due care; (2) breach of duty; (3) causation; and (4) damage to the plaintiff. (County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 318.)  

Defendants assert that Plaintiff cannot maintain a negligence cause of action because Defendants did not owe a duty of care outside of their contractual duties. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants repeatedly were informed of the water damage and repeatedly refused to repair it. This conduct goes beyond a mere breach of contract. Plaintiff states a cause of action for negligence.

The demurrer to the fourth cause of action is OVERRULED

B. Third Cause of Action for Nuisance

            Defendants demur to the cause of action for nuisance on the ground that it is duplicative of the cause of action for negligence. The Court declines to sustain the demurrer on this basis. Plaintiff may plead alternative theories of liability.

            The demurrer to the third cause of action is OVERRULED.

C. Motion to Strike Punitive Damages

“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). “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.)

Punitive damages are available in noncontract cases where the defendant is guilty of “oppression, fraud, or malice.”  (Civ. 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.)

            Defendants move to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to allege ratification, and punitive damages are not available in contract actions. Plaintiff alleges that multiple agents of Defendants refused to repair the water damage on multiple occasions over several years. This is sufficient to establish ratification. Additionally, Plaintiff may seek punitive damages for breach of fiduciary duty and nuisance.

            The motion to strike is DENIED.