Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 23STCV09776, Date: 2023-09-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV09776    Hearing Date: February 22, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: February 22, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Demurrer to First Amended Complaint and Motion to Strike

Moving Party: Defendants Centre of Positive Essentials, Inc., Jeanne Steen, individually and as administrator of the Estate of Mary B. Steen

Responding Party: Plaintiff Lawana Denise Redman

T/R:     DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER IS OVERRULED.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE IS DENIED.

DEFENDANTS TO FILE AND SERVE ANSWERS TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF NOTICE OF 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 and opposition.

BACKGROUND

On November 27, 2023, Plaintiff Lawana Denise Redman filed the operative first amended complaint against Defendants Centre of Positive Essentials, Inc., and Jeanne Steen, asserting causes of action for (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) fraud; (4) negligence; (5) UCL violations; and (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Plaintiff, a former tenant of Defendants, alleges Defendants unlawfully charged Plaintiff excess rent and then threatened to evict Plaintiff.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Defendants’ request for judicial notice is GRANTED.

ANALYSIS

A. Demurrer to First Amended Complaint

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 entire complaint on the ground that Plaintiff failed to file a creditor’s claim against the Estate of Mary B. Steen. Defendants assert that the subject rental premises was an estate asset, barring all of Plaintiff’s claims against all Defendants. In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendants Steen and Center of Positive Essentials are being sued in their individual capacities for wrongs they committed. Plaintiff alleges the named Defendants acted as property managers, and Center of Positive Essentials is named as a party to the lease. This is sufficient to allege claims against Defendants Steen and Center of Positive Essentials.

Defendants’ demurrer is OVERRULED.

B. 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.)

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 Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages on the ground that she has failed to allege malice, oppression, or fraud with the requisite specificity. Plaintiff alleges Defendants charged her excess rent and threatened her with eviction if she did not pay. This is sufficient to allege malice, oppression, or fraud.

The motion to strike is DENIED.