Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 23STCV27511, Date: 2024-02-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV27511    Hearing Date: February 15, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: February 15, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Demurrer to Complaint and Motion to Strike

Moving Party: Defendant FPI Management, Inc.

Responding Party: Plaintiffs Alex Mezulari

T/R:     DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER TO THE NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION IS SUSTAINED. THE DEMURRER TO THE REMAINING CAUSES OF ACTION IS OVERRULED.

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

PLAINTIFF 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, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

On November 8, 2023, Plaintiff Alex Mezulari 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) intentional influence to vacate; (9) violation of Civ. Code 1750; (10) violation of Los Angeles Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance; and (11) false advertising.

Tenant Plaintiff alleges the unit Plaintiff occupies, managed and/or owned by Defendants, is in uninhabitable condition due to water shut offs, limited hot water supply, lack of mosquito proof screens on all operable windows, broken heater, inoperable air conditioner, limited lighting, damaged bathroom and kitchen outlets, damaged appliances, deteriorated cabinets, cracked kitchen floor, rodent droppings, leaking showerhead, broken elevators, inoperable fire alarms, broken washer and dryers.

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 and Tenth Cause of Action for Violation of LAMC § 45.33

Defendant FPI demurs to the first cause of action on the ground that Plaintiff has failed to allege specific dates showing the violations and when FPI was notified of violations. Plaintiff alleges FPI received notice of violations and failed to remedy them within the required time. Plaintiffs need not plead the exact dates.

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

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

Defendant demurs to the second and sixth causes of action on the ground that Plaintiff has failed to allege the existence of a contract. Plaintiff alleges the existence of a written lease agreement starting in 2021. This is sufficient to allege the existence of a contract.

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

C. Third Cause of Action for Nuisance

Defendant demurs to the third cause 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. Plaintiff may plead alternative theories of liability.

The demurrer to the third cause of action is OVERRULED.

D. Fourth and Eleventh Causes of Action for UCL Violations

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

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

E. Seventh Cause of Action for IIED

Defendant asserts Plaintiff cannot state a claim for IIED because Plaintiff has failed to allege extreme and outrageous conduct or severe emotional distress. Plaintiff alleges Defendants consistently cut off Plaintiff’s access to water, failed to provide adequate heat and cooling, and refused to remedy severely damaged areas in the unit. Plaintiff alleges Defendant was notified of these conditions and 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. Eighth Cause of Action for Violation of Civ. Code § 1940.2

Civil Code § 1940.2 precludes menacing conduct constituting a course of conduct that interferes with the quiet enjoyment of the property and would create an apprehension of harm in a reasonable person. Defendant asserts Plaintiff has failed to allege facts showing apprehension of harm. Plaintiff alleges Defendant willfully failed to remedy the uninhabitable conditions of the unit to influence Plaintiff to vacate. This is sufficient to state a cause of action for violation of Civil Code § 1940.2.

The demurrer to the eighth cause of action is OVERRULED

G. Ninth Cause of Action for Violation of CLRA

Defendant asserts the ninth cause of action fails because the CLRA only applies to “goods or services.” The Court agrees. Courts have held that transactions involving the sale of real property are not “goods” or “services” as defined by the CLRA. (See McKell v. Washington Mutual, Inc. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1457.) Plaintiff provides no authority applying the CLRA to real property leases.

The demurrer to the ninth cause of action is SUSTAINED.

F. Motion to Strike

Defendant moves to strike Plaintiff’s prayers for punitive damages, attorney’s 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, however, 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.