Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 23STCV20980, Date: 2024-01-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV20980    Hearing Date: January 8, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: January 8, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Demurrer to Complaint and Motion to Strike

Moving Party: Defendant FPI Management, Inc.

Responding Party: Plaintiffs Alexander Mendoza and Lilibeth Lopez

T/R:     DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER IS OVERRULED.

THE MOTION TO STRIKE IS GRANTED AS TO PUNITIVE DAMAGES ONLY.

PLAINTIFFS TO FILE AND SERVE A FIRST 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, oppositions, and replies.

BACKGROUND

On August 31, 2023, Plaintiffs Alexander Mendoza and Lilibeth Lopez sued Defendants Manhattan Loft, LLC, et al., asserting causes of action for (1) violation of Civ. Code 1942.4; (2) breach of warranty of habitability; (3) nuisance; (4) UCL violations; (5) negligence; (6) breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment; (7) IIED; (8) negligence per se; (9) violation of Civ. Code 1750; (10) violation of Los Angeles Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance; (11) false advertising; (12) toxic environmental mold tort; (13) retaliatory eviction; (14) trespassing; and (15) violation of Civ. Code 1954.

Tenant Plaintiffs allege that the unit they occupy is infested with cockroaches and mold, and has dysfunctional plumbing and electrical systems. Plaintiffs allege Defendants have failed to remedy these issues despite notice from Plaintiffs.

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.)

A. First Cause of Action for Violation of Civ. Code § 1942.4, Tenth Cause of Action for Violation of LAMC § 45.33 and Thirteenth Cause of Action for Retaliatory Eviction

Defendant FPI demurs to the first, tenth, and thirteenth causes of action on the ground that Plaintiffs have failed to allege specific dates showing the violations and when FPI was notified of the violations. Plaintiffs allege FPI received notice of violations, failed to remedy them within the required time, and threatened to evict Plaintiffs in retaliation. Plaintiffs need not plead the exact dates.

The demurrer to the first, tenth, and thirteenth causes of action is OVERRULED.

B. Second Cause of Action Breach of Warranty of Habitability, Sixth Cause of Action for Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment and Fourteenth Cause of Action for Trespass

Defendant demurs to the second, sixth, and fourteenth causes of action on the ground that Plaintiffs have failed to allege the existence of a contract. Plaintiffs allege they are sublessees pursuant to a lease between Defendants and the original tenants. This is sufficient to allege the existence of a contract.

The demurrer to the second, sixth, and fourteenth causes of action is OVERRULED.

C. Third Cause of Action for Nuisance, Eighth Cause of Action for Negligence Per Se and Twelfth Cause of Action for Toxic Tort

Defendant demurs to the third, eighth, and twelfth causes of action on the ground they are duplicative of the fifth cause of action for negligence. The Court declines to sustain the demurrer on this basis. Plaintiffs may plead alternative theories of liability.

The demurrer to the third, eighth, and twelfth causes of action is OVERRULED.

D. Fourth and Eleventh Causes of Action for UCL Violations and Fifteenth Cause of Action for Violation of Civ. Code § 1954

Defendant asserts the fourth, eleventh, and fifteenth causes of action fail because Plaintiffs group all Defendants together and do not allege how each individual Defendant committed statutory violations. Plaintiffs may allege that all Defendants violated the statutory provisions. The demurrer cannot be sustained on this basis.

The demurrer to the fourth, eleventh, and fifteenth causes of action is OVERRULED.

E. Seventh Cause of Action for IIED

Defendant asserts Plaintiffs cannot state a claim for IIED because they have failed to allege extreme and outrageous conduct or severe emotional distress. Plaintiffs allege their unit was infested with cockroaches and mold and lacked adequate plumbing and electrical systems. Plaintiffs allege they notified Defendant of these conditions and Defendant failed to remedy them, leading to severe emotional distress. A jury could find this constitutes extreme and outrageous conduct.

The demurrer to the seventh cause of action is OVERRULED.

F. Motion to Strike

Defendant moves to strike Plaintiffs’ prayers for punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and special damages. The Court will not strike the prayers for attorney’s fees and special damages because Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded entitlement to them. The Court agrees that Plaintiffs have failed to allege entitlement to punitive damages with the requisite specificity. Plaintiffs do not allege facts showing corporate ratification and do not allege facts showing how Defendant specifically acted with malice, oppression, or fraud.

The motion to strike is GRANTED as to punitive damages only.