Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 23STCV04341, Date: 2023-08-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV04341    Hearing Date: August 10, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: August 10, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Strike

Moving Party: Defendants Trainon Investment, LLC, Sandra Rivas and Kenny Wu

Responding Party: Plaintiffs Alberto Barboza and Maritza Espinoza

T/R:     DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE IS DENIED.

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.

“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.)

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.)

Defendants move to strike Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages on the ground that Plaintiffs have failed to allege Defendants acted with malice, oppression, or fraud. Plaintiffs are tenants of a building owned by Defendants.

Plaintiffs allege Defendants harassed them and illegally attempted to evict them. Plaintiffs list various examples of harassment, including: serving Plaintiffs with an illegal Sixty Day Notice of Termination of Tenancy on June 8, 2021 [when Plaintiffs complained to the Housing Authority- Plaintiff retracted such notice of termination]; issuing an illegal rent increase to Plaintiffs on or about January 13, 2022 [when Plaintiffs complained to the Los Angeles Housing Authority - Plaintiff retracted such illegal rent increase notice.]; accusing Plaintiff of damaging the water and dryer and charging them for the replacement of those appliances; and serving notices limiting the activity and conduct of Plaintiffs’ children in the public areas of the premises.

Plaintiffs have alleged consistent, intentional efforts to force Plaintiffs out of their home, which they claim caused severe emotional distress. This is sufficient to plead entitlement to punitive damages. Defendants’ motion is DENIED.