Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 21STCV01264, Date: 2022-09-20 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 21STCV01264    Hearing Date: September 20, 2022    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 9/20/22

Case #21STCV01264

 

DEMURRER & MOTION TO STRIKE TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

 

Demurrer & Motion to Strike filed on 6/13/22. 

 

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Los Olivos Apartments (Doe 1)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Edgar Nieblas Palacios; Liliana A. Aguilera; Angelina Mejia and Amari Nieblas

NOTICE: ok

 

Demurrer is to the 6th and 9th causes of action:

            1.  Breach of Warranty of Habitability (Civil Code 1941.1)

            2.  Breach of Warranty of Habitability (Health & Safety Code 17920.3)

            3.  Breach of Warranty of Habitability (Civil Code 1942.4)

            4.  Negligence – Premises Liability

            5.  Nuisance

            6.  Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

            7.  Breach of Contract

            8.  Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment

            9. Unfair Business Practices (Business & Professions Code 17200, et seq.)

 

RELIEF REQUESTED IN MOTION TO STRIKE: An order striking various portions of Plaintiffs’ complaint relating to punitive damages.

 

RULING:  The demurrer is overruled and the motion to strike is denied.  Answer is due within 20 days.   

 

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 

This action arises out of Plaintiffs Edgar Nieblas Palacios; Liliana A. Aguilera; Angelina Mejia and Amari Nieblas’ (Plaintiffs) tenancy at 14051 Astoria Street, #104, Sylmar, California 91342 (the Subject Unit).  Plaintiffs moved into the Subject Unit in July of 2015.  In the summer of 2019, Plaintiffs began suffering from bites but were unaware of the cause.  In September 2019, Plaintiffs allege that they noticed bedbugs in the Subject Unit and they immediately notified Defendant Los Olivos Apartments (Doe 1) (Defendant).  Plaintiffs allege that the issue was not remediated.  Plaintiffs moved out of the Subject Unit in August 2020.

 

On 1/12/21, Plaintiffs filed this action for: (1) Breach of Warranty of Habitability (Civil Code 1941.1); (2) Breach of Warranty of Habitability (Health & Safety Code 17920.3); (3) Breach of Warranty of Habitability (Civil Code 1942.4); (4) Negligence – Premises Liability; (5) Nuisance; (6) Battery; (7) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (8) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; (9) Breach of Contract; (10) Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment; and (11) Unfair Business Practices (Business & Professions Code 17200, et seq.). 

 

On 5/3/22, this Court sustained Defendant’s demurrer to the 6th, 7th and 11th causes of action with leave to amend and sustained Defendant’s demurrer to the 8th cause of action without leave to amend.  This Court also granted Defendant’s motion to strike, with leave to amend, as to the allegations regarding punitive damages contained in ¶¶54, 86, 119, 125, 138, 145, 146, 152, 156, 158, 193 and 205; denied the motion to strike as to the allegations and prayer for attorney’s fees contained in ¶¶82, 100, 111, 183 and 204; and granted the motion to strike without leave to amend as to the allegations regarding attorney’s fees pursuant to CCP 1021.5 contained in paragraphs ¶¶81 and 126-132 and granted the motion to strike without leave to amend as to the prayer for injunctive relief contained in ¶206.

 

Thereafter, on 5/19/22, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint which contains causes of action for: (1) Breach of Warranty of Habitability (Civil Code 1941.1); (2) Breach of Warranty of Habitability (Health & Safety Code 17920.3); (3) Breach of Warranty of Habitability (Civil Code 1942.4); (4) Negligence – Premises Liability; (5) Nuisance; (6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (7) Breach of Contract; (8) Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment and (9)  Unfair Business Practices (Business & Professions Code 17200, et seq.).

 

Defendant now demurs to the 6th and 9th causes of action and moves to strike various portions of the First Amended Complaint relating to punitive damages.  Plaintiff has opposed the demurrer and motion to strike.

 

DEMURRER

 

6TH CAUSE OF ACTION – INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

 

The elements of a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress are: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct by defendant, with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress, (2) that plaintiffs suffered severe or extreme emotional distress, and (3) that plaintiffs’ injuries were actually and proximately caused by defendant’s conduct.  Cochran (1998) 65 CA4th 488, 494.   

 

Conduct may be considered sufficiently outrageous to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress if a defendant (1) abuses a relationship or position which gives the defendant power to damage the plaintiff’s interest; (2) knows the plaintiff is susceptible to injuries through mental distress; or (3) acts intentionally or unreasonably with the recognition that the acts are likely to result in illness through mental distress.  McDaniel (1991) 230 CA3d 363, 372.  The type of severe emotional distress necessary to support an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim means emotional distress of such substantial quality or enduring quality that no reasonable person in a civilized society should be expected to endure it.  Potter (1993) 6 C4th 965, 1004.

 

A landlord’s refusal to correct defective conditions can amount to sufficient conduct to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.  See Burnett (2004) 123 CA4th 1057, 1062; Stoiber (1980) 101 CA3d 903, 921.  Plaintiffs have alleged that Defendant was aware that a unit adjacent to Plaintiffs’ unit had been infested with bedbugs prior Plaintiffs’ claims of infestation in the summer of 2019 and Defendant failed to warn Plaintiffs about the infestation.  (FAC ¶¶29, 45, 126, 139).  Additionally, Plaintiffs have alleged that Defendant failed to remediate the conditions for over a year until Plaintiffs finally decided to move out of their unit.  (FAC ¶¶31, 32, 42, 49, 126, 137).  Plaintiffs have also alleged that they suffered severe emotional distress as a result of Defendant’s conduct.  (FAC ¶¶143-146).  Based on such allegations, it cannot be determined as a matter of law that Plaintiffs have not stated a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress nor is the claim so uncertain that Defendant cannot respond.  

 

9TH CAUSE OF ACTION – UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES (BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE 17200, ET SEQ.)

 

Business and Professions Code 17200 “prohibits, and provides civil remedies for, unfair competition, which it defines as ‘any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.’” Kwikset Corp. (2011) 51 C4th 310, 320; Business & Professions Code 17200.  An act is “unlawful” if it violates an underlying state or federal statute or common law.  See Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. (1999) 20 C4th 163, 180.  An act is “unfair” if it “threatens an incipient violation of an antitrust law, or violates the policy or spirit of one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the law.”  Id. at 187.   A practice is “fraudulent” if members of the public are likely to be deceived.  See Committee on Children's Television, Inc. (1983) 35 C3d 197, 211.      

 

To have standing to bring cause of action under Business and Professions Code  section 17200,  plaintiffs must (1) establish a loss or deprivation of money or property sufficient to qualify as an injury in fact and (2) show that the injury in fact was caused by the unfair business practice that is the gravamen of the complaint.  Kwikset, supra at 322.

 

Within the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs have alleged that Defendant’s conduct violated various statutes.  (See FAC, 1st, 2nd and 3rd causes of action).  Additionally, as noted above, Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged intentional conduct on the part of Defendant.   

 

Plaintiffs are also seeking restitution of the rent paid for the time they were subjected to the alleged uninhabitable conditions.  As such, Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled a claim for unfair business practices.    

 

MOTION TO STRIKE

 

Punitive damages are recoverable in an action for 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.  CC 3294(a).  Mere conclusions that a defendant’s conduct was wrongful, willful, wanton, reckless or unlawful are insufficient to state a claim for punitive damages.  See G.D. Searle & Company (1975) 49 CA3d 22, 29-30.  Similarly, mere spite or ill-will is insufficient as is negligence, even gross negligence, to support a punitive damage claim.  Ebaugh (1973) 22 CA3d 891, 894-895.  The type of despicable conduct necessary to support a claim for punitive damages is conduct which is “so vile, base, contemptible, miserable, wretched or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary, decent people.”  Mock (1992) 4 CA4th 306, 331.

 

The allegations of intentional misconduct on the part of Defendant and its management are sufficient to support a finding of the type of despicable conduct necessary to state a claim for punitive damages.