Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV00469, Date: 2023-09-01 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23CHCV00469 Hearing Date: April 3, 2024 Dept: F47
Dept. F47
Date: 4/3/24
Case #23CHCV00469
DEMURRER &
MOTION TO STRIKE TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Demurrer & Motion to Strike filed on 10/23/23.
MOVING PARTY: Defendant Peter
Coeler dba P.A.C. Properties
NOTICE: ok
Demurrer is to the entire First Amended Complaint:
1. Violation of
Civil Code 1942.4
2.
Tortious Breach of the Warranty of Habitability
3.
Private Nuisance
4.
Business & Professions Code 17200, et seq.
5.
Negligence
RELIEF REQUESTED IN MOTION TO STRIKE: An order
striking various portions in the complaint related to
punitive damages and the paragraphs which incorporate prior allegations.
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 Rosa L. Munguia
Rodriguez; Breanna Munguia-Sena (Suing By Her Guardian Ad Litem, Rosa L.
Munguia Rodriguez); Alaina Sena (Suing By Her Guardian Ad Litem, Rosa L.
Munguia Rodriguez); Suryah Martinez (Suing By Her Guardian Ad Litem, Rosa L.
Munguia Rodriguez); and Sonic Martinez’s (Suing By Her Guardian Ad Litem, Rosa
L. Munguia Rodriguez) (Plaintiffs) tenancy in an apartment in a multi-unit
complex owned and/or managed by Defendant Peter Coeler dba P.A.C. Properties (Defendant).
On 2/21/23, Plaintiffs filed this action against
Defendant for: (1) Violation of Civil Code 1942.4; (2) Tortious Breach of the
Warranty of Habitability; (3) Private Nuisance; (4) Business & Professions
Code 17200, et seq. and (5) Negligence.
After meet and confer efforts failed to resolve issues Defendant had
with the original complaint, on 5/11/23, Defendant filed and served a demurrer
to the entire complaint and a motion to strike which sought to strike various portions in the complaint related to punitive
damages and the paragraphs which incorporated prior allegations. Plaintiffs opposed the demurrer and motion to
strike and Defendant filed replies to the oppositions. On 9/1/23, this Court sustained Defendant’s
demurrer with 20 days leave to amend and placed the motion to strike off
calendar as moot due to the ruling on the demurrer.
On 9/21/23, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended
Complaint alleging the same five causes of action as in their original
complaint. After meet and confer efforts
failed to resolve the issues Defendant had with the First Amended Complaint, on
10/23/23, Defendant filed and served the instant demurrer to the entire First
Amended Complaint and motion to strike with seeks to various portions in the
First Amended Complaint related to punitive damages and the paragraphs which
incorporate prior allegations. The demurrer
notes that the First Amended Complaint was not served on Defendant until
9/22/23, after Defendant’s counsel’s inquiry.
(See Demurrer, p.ii, fn.1).
The hearing on the demurrer and motion to strike as to
the First Amended Complaint was originally scheduled for 12/15/23 and continued
by the Court to 1/9/24. Although
oppositions to the demurrer and motion to strike were served on Defendant,
Plaintiff failed to file same with the Court.
Therefore, on 1/9/24, the Court continued the hearing on the demurrer
and motion to strike to 4/3/24. (See
1/9/24 Minute Order). The oppositions
have now been filed and Defendant had previously filed replies to the oppositions.
ANALYSIS
Defendant demurs to each of the causes of action in the
First Amended Complaint on the ground that they fail to allege sufficient facts
to constitute a cause of action and are uncertain. CCP 430.10(e), (f).
While the First Amended Complaint is not a model
pleading, the same holds true for the demurrer thereto. For instance, in the demurrer, Defendant
repeatedly refers to allegations against “the Homeowners Association,” when no
such allegations appear in the First Amended Complaint. (See Demurrer, Table of Contents p.v:6
(pdf 5), p.3:3, p.3:23 (pdf 10)).
The Court finds that when the First Amended Complaint is
read as a whole, Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to state each of the
causes therein and the claims are not so uncertain that Defendant cannot
respond. Any remaining questions
regarding Plaintiffs’ claim can be resolved through discovery.
Similarly, the Court finds that sufficient facts are pled
to support a claim for punitive damages against Defendant. Additionally, the Court does not find that
the incorporation of prior allegations into later causes of action need to be stricken.
CONCLUSION
The demurrer is overruled and the motion to strike is
denied. Answer is due within 20 days.