Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 23STCV23759, Date: 2024-05-13 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV23759 Hearing Date: May 13, 2024 Dept: 45
Hearing
date: 05/13/2024
Moving
Party: Defendants
AJR Investment Group, LLC and AR Tarzana Properties
Responding
Party: Plaintiffs
Elizabeth and Demian Robles
Motion: Motion
To Strike Portions Of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint By Defendants AJR Investment Group, LLC And AR Tarzana Properties
The Court
considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply. Motion To Strike Portions Of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint by
Defendants AJR Investment Group, LLC and AR Tarzana Properties is DENIED.
Background
Factual and Procedural Background
On
October 2, 2023, Elizabeth Robles (Elizabeth) and her son Demian Robles (collectively,
Plaintiffs) filed a Complaint against entities AJR Investment Group, LLC; AR Tarzana
Properties; and individual Joy Neal-Regula and Mario Cea (collectively
Defendants). The Complaint was followed by a First Amended Complaint (FAC) that
alleged eleven causes of action against the Defendants as followed:
1.
Breach of Contract
2.
Breach of Implied Covenant of Good
Faith & Fair Dealing
3.
Breach of Warranty of Habitability
4.
Breach of Warranty of Quiet
Enjoyment
5.
Violation of Civ. Code §§1941.1, et
seq.; 1942.4 et seq.
6.
Negligent Maintenance
7.
Fraud – Misrepresentation and
Deceit
8.
Sexual Harassment
9.
Extortion
10. Unfair
Business Practices in Violation of Bus. & Prof. Code §17200, et seq
11. Intentional
Infliction of Emotional Distress
The
FAC stems from Plaintiffs’ residence at 18440 Hatteras Street, Unit 47,
Tarzana, California 91356 (the Subject Property). Plaintiffs alleges that they
moved into the Subject Property in 2010. (FAC, ¶17.) Upon taking possession,
Plaintiffs experienced several issues, including vermin, leaking pipes, a
broken garbage disposal, and visible mold, among other issues. (FAC, ¶19.)
Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that in 2021, after assisting a family in
obtaining possession of a unit – unit 64 – in May of 2021, Defendant Joy
Neal-Regula (Neal-Regula) informed Elizabeth that she would be responsible for
the collection of rent from that family, even though Elizabeth was neither an
owner nor a manager. (FAC, ¶25.) After objecting to this proposed arrangement,
Elizabeth alleges that Neal-Regula threatened her with eviction from the
Subject Property. (FAC, ¶27.) Elizabeth then became responsible not only for
collecting the rent for unit 64, but was responsible for paying the family’s
rent if they defaulted, as she was threatened with eviction if the rent was not
collected timely. (FAC, ¶¶31-33.)
Elizabeth
goes on to allege that this not only applied to unit 64 who occupied unit 64,
but also for the tenants who occupied units, 103, 45, 48, 63, and 65. (FAC,
¶33.) Additionally, Neal-Regula instructed Elizabeth to serve eviction notices
on tenants in unit 63 and 64 and file the paperwork with the court,
representing herself as a manager/owner. (FAC, ¶37.)
In
addition to these allegations, Elizabeth also alleges that Defendant Mario Cea
(Cea) who was employed as a maintenance worker for the Subject Property
sexually harassed her by requesting sexually-explicit images and asking to go
out with her. (FAC, ¶¶41-42.) Cea continually used the fact that Plaintiffs
water was shut off from November 2022 until April 2023 to request sexually
explicit images of Elizabeth. (Id.) After it became clear Elizabeth
would not succumb to these requests Cea and the other Defendants threatened her
with eviction. (FAC, ¶44.) Plaintiffs then filed suit.
The
motion now before the Court is the Motion
To Strike Portions Of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint By Defendants AJR Investment
Group, LLC And AR Tarzana Properties (the Motion). Plaintiffs oppose the
Motion, AJR Investment Group, LLC and AR Tarzana Properties (Entity Defendants) file a reply.
Meet and Confer
“Before
filing a motion to strike pursuant to this chapter, the moving party shall meet
and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that
is subject to the motion to strike for the purpose of determining if an
agreement can be reached that resolves the objections to be raised in the
motion to strike.” (Code Civ. Proc. §435.5(a).) Defendants present the
Declaration of Whitney L. Bost (hereinafter, Bost Decl.) which states that
after several attempts the parties were unable to meet and confer. (Bost Decl.,
¶ 4.) Accordingly, the requirements for Code Civ. Proc. §435.5(a) remain unsatisfied.
However, per CCP § 435.5(a)(4), “A determination by the court that the meet and
confer process was insufficient shall not be grounds to grant or deny the
motion to strike.” Therefore, the Court
will turn its attention to the Motion.
Discussion
Legal Standard
The
court may, upon motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it
deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any
pleading. (Code Civ. Proc. §436, subd. (a).) The court may also strike 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. (Code Civ. Proc. § 436, subd.
(b).) The grounds for a motion to strike are that the pleading has irrelevant,
false, or improper matter, or has not been drawn or filed in conformity with
laws. (Code Civ. Proc. §436.) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on
the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc. §437.)
A motion to strike any pleading must
be filed “within the time allowed to respond to a pleading”—e.g., 30 days after
service of the complaint or cross-complaint unless extended by court order or
stipulation. [Code Civ. Proc. §435(b)(1)]. This does not affect the court's power to strike sua
sponte. Courts are specifically authorized to strike a pleading upon a motion
or at any time in the court's discretion. (Code Civ. Proc. §436)
The Court notes that motions to
strike punitive damages may be granted, where the alleged facts do not support
conclusions of malice, fraud or oppression. (Turman v. Turning Point of
Central Calif., Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63.)
Analysis
Although
Entity Defendants are the only Defendants that file the Motion, Plaintiffs
plead alter ego allegations, imputing the allegations of one defendant against
all, as the Court assumes the truth of the complaint’s properly pleaded or
implied factual allegations. (See E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants, Inc. Servs.
(2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1315.) In their moving papers, Entity Defendants
argue that Plaintiffs’ claims and prayer for punitive damages must be stricken
from the FAC because Plaintiffs fail to plead facts that show Defendants acted
with fraud, malice, and oppression. The Court disagrees and denies the Motion.
Civ.
Code §3294
CIV § 3294
governs punitive damages and provides the following:
“In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract,
where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been
guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the
actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of
punishing the defendant.” (CIV § 3294(a).)
CIV § 3294(c)(1)
provides the following definitions shall apply to this section:
(1) “Malice” means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause
injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the
defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of
others.
(2) “Oppression” means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel
and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights.
(3) “Fraud” means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or
concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the
part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights
or otherwise causing injury.
Plaintiffs
Plead Sufficient Facts to Support Punitive Damages
Within
the FAC, Plaintiffs plead that the actions taken by Defendants were done with
malice. For example, Plaintiffs allege that in 2021, after assisting a family
in obtaining possession of unit 64 on the Subject Property in May of 2021,
Defendant Joy Neal-Regula (Neal-Regula) informed Elizabeth that she would be
responsible for the collection of rent from that family, even though Elizabeth
was neither an owner nor a manager. (FAC, ¶25.) After objecting to this
proposed arrangement, Elizabeth alleges that Neal-Regula threatened her with
eviction from the Subject Property. (FAC, ¶27.) Defendants are silent on this
point in both their moving and reply papers.
A
second example is when Elizabeth alleges that Neal-Regula instructed Elizabeth
to serve eviction notices on tenants in unit 63 and 64 and file the paperwork
with the court, representing herself as a manager/owner, again under threat of
eviction. (FAC, ¶37.) Defendants are silent as to this point as well. Finally,
Defendants make no mention of the sexual harassment allegations against Cea,
who attempted to leverage the fact that Elizabeth’s water was turned off in
order to obtain sexually explicit images from her. (FAC, ¶¶40-44.)
Defendants
argue that punitive damages should only be allowed in the “clearest of cases”,
citing Henderson v. Security National Bank (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 764,
771. (Moving Papers, 5:25.) Defendants go on to argue that punitive damages are
only appropriate ‘if the defendant’s acts are reprehensible, fraudulent, or in
blatant violation of law or policy…” citing American Airlines, Inc. v.
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th
1017, 1051.
Here,
Plaintiffs present the Court with such a case upon their pleadings, providing
allegations of sexual harassment and unlawful threats that the Court can read
in no other manner but as evidence of malice and oppression. Defendants fail to
persuade the Court otherwise.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the
Motion To Strike Portions Of
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint by Defendants AJR Investment Group, LLC and
AR Tarzana Properties is DENIED.
It
is so ordered.
Dated: May 13, 2024
_______________________
MEL RED RECANA
Judge of the Superior
Court