Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 23SMCV03404, Date: 2024-02-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV03404    Hearing Date: February 8, 2024    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Defendant Barrington Pacific, LLC (“Defendant”) moves to strike from Plaintiff Annabella Gutman’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint references to and demands for injunctive relief and punitive damages.  Plaintiff opposes the motion and Defendant replies.

LEGAL STANDARDS - MOTION TO STRIKE

Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading, may serve and file a motion to strike the whole pleading or any part thereof.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1322, subd. (b).)  On a motion to strike, the court may: (1) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of the court.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a)-(b); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782.) 

Here, Defendant moves to strike Plaintiff’s references to and demands for injunctive relief and punitive damages.

1.      Injunctive Relief

Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to adequately plead what specific injunctive relief she seeks in connection with the nuisance cause of action, and therefore the request for injunctive relief should be stricken.  The only authority Defendant cites in support is Code of Civil Procedure section 431.10, which defines “material” and “immaterial” allegations and provides that an “immaterial allegation” is an “irrelevant matter” subject to a motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 436.

The Court disagrees.  There is no heightened pleading requirement for nuisance.  Plaintiff has adequately alleged that Defendant’s failure to repair and maintain the property has created a nuisance, for which Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to remedy.

Therefore Defendant’s motion to strike the requests for injunctive relief is denied.

2.      Punitive Damages

In ruling on a motion to strike punitive damages, “judges read allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth.”  (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.)  To state a prima facie claim for punitive damages, a plaintiff must allege the elements set forth in the punitive damages statute, Civil Code section 3294.  (College Hosp., Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 721.)  Per Civil Code section 3294, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.  (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).)   As set forth in the Civil Code,

(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.

(Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(1)-(3), emphasis added.) 

Further, a plaintiff must assert facts with specificity to support a conclusion that a defendant acted with oppression, fraud or malice.  To wit, there is a heightened pleading requirement regarding a claim for punitive damages.  (See Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1041-1042.)  “When nondeliberate injury is charged, allegations that the defendant’s conduct was wrongful, willful, wanton, reckless or unlawful do not support a claim for exemplary damages; such allegations do not charge malice.  When a defendant must produce evidence in defense of an exemplary damage claim, fairness demands that he receive adequate notice of the kind of conduct charged against him.” (G. D. Searle & Co. v. Superior Court (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 22, 29 [cleaned up].)  In Anschutz Entertainment Group, Inc. v. Snepp, the Court of Appeal noted that the plaintiffs’ assertions related to their claim for punitive damages were “insufficient to meet the specific pleading requirement.”  (Anschutz Entertainment Group, Inc. v. Snepp (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 598, 643 [plaintiffs alleged “the conduct of Defendants was intentional, and done willfully, maliciously, with ill will towards Plaintiffs, and with conscious disregard for Plaintiff's rights. Plaintiff's injuries were exacerbated by the malicious conduct of Defendants. Defendants' conduct justifies an award of exemplary and punitive damages”]; see also Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166 [“The mere allegation an intentional tort was committed is not sufficient to warrant an award of punitive damages.  Not only must there be circumstances of oppression, fraud, or malice, but facts must be alleged in the pleading to support such a claim”].) 

            Moreover, “[a]n employer shall not be liable for damages pursuant to subdivision (a), based upon acts of an employee of the employer, unless the employer had advance knowledge of the unfitness of the employee and employed him or her with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others or authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct for which the damages are awarded or was personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.”  (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (b).)

Defendant argues the allegations do not specifically plead Defendant’s prior knowledge, especially since Defendant is the employer of those responsible for the building maintenance.  Plaintiff responds that the allegations in the Complaint sufficiently establish Defendant’s knowledge.

With respect to Defendant’s knowledge, the Complaint alleges:

5.  On information and belief Barrington Plaza (Defendants) led Plaintiff into the lease, knew of the conditions, knew they planned to not honor the Agreement, and at all material times, managed the day to day activities and conditions of the Property, and interfaced with Tenants regarding issues at The Property.

[…]

10.  Plaintiff entered a lease for 1 year of exclusive use and enjoyment of the Property on or about February 22, 2023.  In or about May 2023, Defendant made news that they would seek to evict all 712-units at the Property to make repairs, both breaching the lease Agreement, and making Plaintiff incur costs, frustration and damages for having moved into the Property.

11.  Since announcing their plans, Defendant has stopped repairing and maintaining the Property. […]

13. Plaintiff began making written complaints about ongoing faulty plumbing and constant disruption of quiet enjoyment starting in May 2023.  Defendant have since failed to repair.

14. Plaintiff is informed and believe that the repairs and conditions at the Property were known by Defendants prior to entering into the Lease Agreement and were intentionally withheld including planned site-wide evictions.

15.  Specifically, the Defendant entered an Agreement without the ability to perform and has since intentionally, negligently or recklessly abandoned their duties. […]

16.  On information and belief, the Defendants are experienced property owners and managers, and landlords of residential property throughout Los Angeles County, and are aware of the conditions, without immediate remediation serious habitability violations would develop that would seriously and materially impact one’s health and tenancy.

17.  In response to Plaintiff’s disapproval of the breach of her lease, and complaints and vocal dissent about the above neglect, the Defendants ignored the Plaintiffs and retaliated against her through communication and/or disregard and ultimately failing to remedy the situation, including, failing to relocate the Plaintiff.

18.  Plaintiff is informed and believe that Defendants are intentionally disregarding the property in an effort to maximize their profits pending their mass-eviction, in complete disregard for Plaintiff’s rights in law and equity.

[…]

21.  On or about June of 2023 the Defendants stopped performing maintenance and repairs throughout the Property.

[…]

25.  Defendants had actual and constructive notice of the defective conditions alleged herein, but despite such notice, failed to adequately repair and abate the conditions at The Property.

[…]

28.  Defendants knew or should have known that permitting said defective conditions to exist threatened the physical and emotional health and well-being of Plaintiff and posed a serious threat and danger to their health and safety.

(Complaint ¶¶ 5, 10-11, 13-18, 21, 25, 28.)

            With regard to the allegations made “on information and belief,” allegations made “on information and belief” are insufficient to satisfy the heightened pleading requirement “unless the facts upon which the belief is founded are stated in the pleading.”  (Dowling v. Spring Val. Water Co. (1917) 174 Cal.218, 221.)

            As for the remaining allegations, although Plaintiff alleges that she began notifying Defendant in writing of the defective conditions in May 2023, and Defendant stopped maintaining the property in June 2023, Plaintiff does not plead specific facts regarding exactly when the letters were sent, or who and where they were sent to in order to adequately plead punitive damages against Defendant employer.

            Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to strike punitive damages from the Complaint.

3.      Leave to Amend

A plaintiff has the burden of showing in what manner the complaint could be amended and how the amendment would change the legal effect of the complaint, i.e., state a cause of action. (See The Inland Oversight Committee v City of San Bernardino (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 771, 779; PGA West Residential Assn., Inc. v Hulven Int'l, Inc. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 156, 189.) A plaintiff must not only state the legal basis for the amendment, but also the factual allegations sufficient to state a cause of action or claim. (See PGA West Residential Assn., Inc. v Hulven Int'l, Inc., supra, 14 Cal.App.5th at p. 189.) Moreover, a plaintiff does not meet his or her burden by merely stating in the opposition to a demurrer or motion to strike that “if the Court finds the operative complaint deficient, plaintiff respectfully requests leave to amend.” (See Major Clients Agency v Diemer (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1133; Graham v Bank of America (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 594, 618 [asserting an abstract right to amend does not satisfy the burden].)

Here, Plaintiff has failed to meet this burden, as Plaintiff merely argues that Courts liberally grant leave to amend, but does not provide any specific facts Plaintiff could add to cure the deficiencies identified.    

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons stated, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendant’s motion to strike. 

Defendant’s motion is granted with respect to Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages.  The Court orders the prayer for punitive damages stricken from the Complaint without leave to amend.    

Defendant’s motion is denied with respect to Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief. 

Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service regarding the same. 

DATED:  February 8, 2024                                                    ___________________________

                                                                                          Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court