Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20SMCV00474, Date: 2024-05-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20SMCV00474 Hearing Date: May 9, 2024 Dept: 207
TENTATIVE
RULING
|
DEPARTMENT |
207 |
|
HEARING DATE |
May
9, 2024 |
|
CASE NUMBER |
20SMCV00474 |
|
MOTION |
Motion
for Summary Adjudication |
|
Defendants Park Overland Apartments LLC and
Moss and Company, Inc. |
|
|
OPPOSING PARTY |
Plaintiff
Lauren Kutasi |
MOVING PAPERS:
REPLY PAPERS:
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Lauren Kutasi (“Plaintiff”) filed a First Amended Complaint
(“FAC”) alleging causes of action for (1) Tortuous [sic] Breach of Warranty of
Habitability; (2) Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment; (3) Nuisance; (4) Business
& Professions Code § 17200; (5) Negligence; (6) Breach of Contract; (8)[1]
Intentional Interference with Estate (Civ Code 789.3); and (9) Violation of the
Unruh Civil Rights Act, stemming from allegedly uninhabitable conditions in the
residential property Plaintiff leased from Defendants from January 1, 2012
through February 27, 2020. (FAC ¶
2.)
Defendants Park Overland Apartments, LLC and Moss and Company, Inc.
(“Defendants”) now move for summary adjudication “on the grounds that all of
Plaintiff’s claims for damages for physical injury arising from her tenancy at
the Subject Property are barred by the statute of limitations, that there is no
triable issue as to any material fact, and that Defendants are entitled to
summary adjudication as a matter of law.”
(Notice of Motion and Motion.)
Plaintiff opposes the motion and Defendants Reply.
EVIDENTIARY
OBJECTIONS
The Court rules as follows with
respect to the Defendants’ objections to Plaintiff’s evidence:
LEGAL STANDARDS – MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
A party may move for
summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action, affirmative defenses,
claims for damages, or issues of duty if that party contends that there is no
merit to the cause of action, defense, or claim for damages, or if the party
contends that there is no duty owed. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).) “A motion for summary adjudication shall be
granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an
affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” (Ibid.,
emphasis added) A cause of action has no merit if: (1) one or
more elements of the cause of action cannot be separately established, even if
that element is separately pleaded, or (2) a defendant establishes an
affirmative defense to that cause of action.
(See Code Civ. Proc., §
437c, subd. (n); Union Bank v. Superior
Court (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 573, 583.)
Once the defendant has shown that a cause of action has no merit, the
burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of material fact
exists as to that cause of action. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (o)(2); Union Bank v. Superior Court, supra, 31 Cal.App.4th at p.
583.)
“[T]he party moving for
summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue
of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law[.]
There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would
allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the
party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.”
¿(Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850
(hereafter Aguilar).) ¿“[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears an
initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence
of any triable issue of material fact; if he carries his burden of production,
he causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of
production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a
triable issue of material fact.” ¿(Ibid.; Smith v. Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1474 [summary judgment standards held by Aguilar
apply to summary adjudication motions].) Further, in line with Aguilar,
“[o]n a motion for summary adjudication, the trial court has no discretion to
exercise. If a triable issue of material fact exists as to the challenged
causes of action, the motion must be denied. If there is no triable issue of
fact, the motion must be granted.” (Fisherman's Wharf Bay Cruise Corp.
v. Superior Court (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 309, 320.)
Further, “the trial court
may not weigh the evidence in the manner of a factfinder to determine whose
version is more likely true. Nor may the
trial court grant summary judgment based on the court's evaluation of
credibility.” (Aguilar, supra, 25
Cal.4th. at p. 840 [cleaned up]; see also Weiss v. People ex rel. Department
of Transportation (2020) 9 Cal.5th 840, 864 [“Courts deciding motions for
summary judgment or summary adjudication may not weigh the evidence but must
instead view it in the light most favorable to the opposing party and draw all
reasonable inferences in favor of that party”].)
DISCUSSION
Defendants move for summary
adjudication of all Plaintiff’s claims for damages from physical injuries, on
the basis that they are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. However, “a motion for summary adjudication
shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an
affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).) Therefore, the Court reviews the allegations
of the First Amended Complaint to determine which causes of action, if any,
will be disposed of by virtue of Plaintiff’s claims for damages from physical
injuries.
The first cause of action alleges,
“As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach of the warranty of
habitability, Plaintiffs [sic] has sustained special, general and property
damage in amounts to be determined at trial.”
(FAC ¶ 25.) Therefore, summary
adjudication of Plaintiff’s request for damages arising from physical injury
would not completely dispose of the first cause of action.
The second cause of action alleges
“As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach of the covenant of
quiet enjoyment, the value of the leasehold held by Plaintiff has been
materially diminished. Consequently,
Plaintiffs [sic] has been damaged in an amount to be established at trial” and
“As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has
sustained general, special and property damages, civil penalties, with amounts
to be determined at trial.” (FAC ¶¶
30-31.) Therefore, summary adjudication
of Plaintiff’s request for damages arising from physical injury would not
completely dispose of the second cause of action.
The third cause of action alleges,
“As a direct and proximate result thereof, Plaintiff has sustained general,
special and property damage in amounts to be determined at trial.” (FAC ¶ 38.)
Therefore, summary adjudication of Plaintiff’s request for damages
arising from physical injury would not completely dispose of the third cause of
action.
The fourth cause of action alleges,
“Plaintiff was harmed as a result of said practices by paying full monthly rent
for the unit with material deficiencies and ongoing construction, harassment
and nuisance” and “As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts
and omissions, the Defendants have been unjustly enriched at the expense of
Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs are entitled to restitution in an amount to be
proven at trial.” (FAC ¶¶ 42, 44.) Therefore, summary adjudication of
Plaintiff’s request for damages arising from physical injury would not
completely dispose of the fourth cause of action.
The fifth cause of action alleges,
“As a proximate result of the above-mentioned conduct, Plaintiff suffered
general damages, including, but not limited to property damage, emotional
distress and pain, suffering, and inconvenience.” (FAC ¶ 49.)
Therefore, summary adjudication of Plaintiff’s request for damages
arising from physical injury would not completely dispose of the fifth cause of
action.
The sixth cause of action realleges
and incorporates by reference all above allegations and seeks damages for
Defendants’ alleged breach of the lease agreement. The prior allegations indicate Defendants
continued to charge Plaintiff rent but failed to provide Plaintiff a habitable
property in return. (FAC ¶¶ 53-57.) Therefore, summary adjudication of
Plaintiff’s request for damages arising from physical injury would not
completely dispose of the sixth cause of action.
There is no seventh cause of action
alleged.
The eighth cause of action alleges,
“Plaintiffs [sic] was harmed as a result of said behavior because it caused and
continues to cause him [sic] severe emotional distress.” (FAC ¶ 67.)
Therefore, summary adjudication of Plaintiff’s request for damages
arising from physical injury would not completely dispose of the eighth cause
of action.
Similarly, the ninth cause of action alleges, “As a proximate result
of the above-mentioned conduct, Plaintiff suffered general damages, including,
but not limited to emotional distress and pain, suffering, and
inconvenience.” (FAC ¶ 76.) Therefore, summary adjudication of
Plaintiff’s request for damages arising from physical injury would not
completely dispose of the ninth cause of action. (See Fletcher v. Western National Life
Ins. Co. (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 376, 396–397 [“recovery may be had for
emotional distress alone without resulting physical disability.”]; Bikkina
v. Mahadevan (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 70, 88 [“Shame, humiliation,
embarrassment, or anger can constitute emotional distress, but it must be
severe and not trivial or transient.”])
Nor does Defendants’ motion dispose of a claim for damages. Code of Civil Procedure section 437c,
subdivision (f)(1) explains, “A party may move for summary adjudication […] as
to one or more claims for damages […] if the party contends […] that there is
no merit to a claim for damages, as specified in Section 3294 of the Civil
Code[.]” Section 3294 of the Civil Code pertains
to exemplary or punitive damages in cases where there has been oppression,
fraud, or malice. Defendants do not seek
to dispose of Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages.
Nor would Defendants’ motion dispose of Plaintiff’s claim for special
damages, which includes rent wrongfully paid, or Plaintiff’s claim for general
damages, which includes emotional distress.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Because Defendants have not identified a cause of action, affirmative
defense, claim for damages, or issue of duty that would be completely disposed
by Defendants’ motion, the Court denies Defendants’ motion for summary
adjudication.
Defendants shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file the
notice with a proof of service regarding the same.
DATED: May 9, 2024 ___________________________
Michael
E. Whitaker
Judge
of the Superior Court