Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 24CHCV04347, Date: 2025-03-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CHCV04347    Hearing Date: March 7, 2025    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 3/7/25

Case #24CHCV04347

 

DEMURRER & MOTION TO STRIKE TO THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

 

Demurrer & Motion to Strike filed on 2/5/25.

 

MOVING PARTY: Defendant MCP Sayre, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Silvia Solorzano

NOTICE: ok

 

Demurrer is to the 5th cause of action:

            1.  Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability

            2.  Negligence

            3.  Nuisance

            4.  Breach of Quiet Enjoyment

            5.  Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

            6.  Unruh  Civil Rights Act (Civil Code 51)

            7.  Anti-Harassment Statute (Civil Code 1940.2)

 

RELIEF REQUESTED IN MOTION TO STRIKE: An order striking various allegations throughout the complaint.

 

RULING: The demurrer is overruled and the motion to strike is denied.  Answer is due within 30 days. 

 

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 

This action arises out of Plaintiff Silvia Solorzano’s (Plaintiff) tenancy in a residential building located at 13910 Sayre Street, Unit 14, in Sylmar, California (the Property) which is alleged to be owned, managed and/or operated by Defendant MCP Sayre, LLC (Defendant).  Plaintiff alleges that the Property suffers from defective water pipes, plumbing issues, rats, roaches, bedbugs, rodents, spiders, inoperable windows and doors caused by deterioration, holes “all over” the unit, faulty electrical fittings that sparked every time something is connected to it, deteriorating walls, mold in the living room, bedroom, hallway, closet, restroom walls, deteriorated bathroom walls and floors.  Plaintiff alleges that she became sick with rashes and breathing issues due to the alleged conditions in the Property.  Plaintiff also alleges damaged toilet and bathtub, holes around the AC Unit, damaged/clogged sinks, damaged and deteriorated carpets, a non-functional heater, damaged electrical appliances, deteriorated cabinets, broken tiles, general sanitary conditions of the unit, broken bedroom windows that did not close all the way, hot water shut offs with no notice which allegedly remained for over a week, broken garbage disposal, and closet doors that get stuck and do not slide.

 

As a result, on 11/25/24, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant alleging causes of action for: (1) Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability; (2) Negligence; (3) Nuisance; (4) Breach of Quiet Enjoyment; (5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (6) Unruh  Civil Rights Act (Civil Code 51) and (7) Anti-Harassment Statute (Civil Code 1940.2).  After meet and confer efforts failed to resolve the issues Defendant has with the complaint, on 2/5/25, Defendant filed and served the instant demurrer to the 5th cause of action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress on the ground that the 5th cause of action fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action.  (See Demurrer, p.ii:9-11).  Plaintiff also filed the instant motion to strike which seeks to strike numerous and various allegations throughout the First Amended Complaint seemingly related to Plaintiffs’ prayer for punitive damages.  (See Argumosa Decl.).

 

On 2/25/25, one day late, Plaintiff filed and served oppositions to the demurrer and motion to strike.  Defendant has filed replies to the oppositions.

 

Despite the late filing and service of the opposition papers, Defendant has responded on the merits and has not requested a continuance of the hearing to further respond.  Therefore, the Court has considered the oppositions in ruling on the demurrer and motion to strike.  See CRC 3.1300(d).

 

ANALYSIS 

  

Demurrer

 

Although the notice of demurrer indicates that it is based solely on the ground that the 5th cause of action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, the memorandum of points and authorities also contends the 5th cause of action is fatally uncertain.  (See Demurrer, p.ii:9-11, p.1:23-24).  However, the remainder of the memorandum of points and authorities fails to address the argument that the cause of action uncertain.  (See Demurrer, generally).

 

The elements of a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress are: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant done with the intent of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff suffering severe emotional distress; and (3) defendant’s extreme and outrageous conduct being the actual and proximate cause of the severe emotional distress.  Hughes (2009) 46 C4th 1035, 1050.  Whether conduct is extreme and outrageous is generally a question of fact.  See Barker (2015) 240 CA4th 333, 356.

 

Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on the allegations that Defendant, through its property managers, supervisors and maintenance agents, including “Linda” and others failed to disclose and/or made misrepresentations regarding the known dangerous and defective conditions of the property to Plaintiff; repeatedly failed to respond to Plaintiff’s requests for repairs to the Property; ignored orders from public authorities to repair/remediate the defects; threatened Plaintiff with eviction for complaining about the defects/conditions of the Property; abused the right to lawfully enter the unit; discriminated against and harassed Plaintiff based on her race and familial status (Plaintiff alleges that “no other…tenants with race different from the plaintiff was [sic] treated in the same manner as the Plaintiff.”).  (See Complaint ¶¶10-15, 136-156).  Additionally, Plaintiff has alleged that Defendants, through their agents, acted with the intent to cause, and did cause, Plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress.  (Complaint ¶¶159-160, 162-163).  

 

Motion to Strike

 

The memorandum of points and authorities filed in support of the motion to strike focuses on striking claims for punitive damages.  (See Motion to Strike, Memorandum of Points and Authorities, generally).  However, Defendant seeks to strike numerous and various allegations throughout the First Amended Complaint, including allegations in the introduction and common allegations sections, and certain allegations within the first through sixth causes of action which seemingly are not solely related to Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages.  Some of the allegations sought to be stricken could also support elements of the causes of action pled and not challenged in the demurrer.

 

In Defendant’s replies to Plaintiffs’ opposition, with regard to the motion to strike, Defendant argues that because “Plaintiff’s cause of action based on intentional and fraudulent conduct fail, Defendant’s Motion to Strike should be granted.”  (See Reply Re Demurrer, p.4:7-8; Reply Re Motion to Strike, p.4:8-9).  However, as noted above, the Court finds that Plaintiff has adequately stated a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, which appears to be the cause of action Defendant is referring to in the replies. 

 

The complaint alleges sufficient facts to support a claim for punitive damages.  Additionally, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to establish that any of the allegations set forth in the notice of the motion to strike should be stricken from the complaint. 

 

CONCLUSION

 

The demurrer is overruled and the motion to strike is denied.  An answer is due within 30 days.