Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 24SMCV03252, Date: 2024-12-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV03252    Hearing Date: December 17, 2024    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

On July 5, 2024, Plaintiff Erin Pillman (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Defendant Masoud Atef (“Defendant”) alleging eleven causes of action for (1) breach of the implied warranty of habitability; (2) breach of the statutory warranty of habitability; (3) unfair business practices; (4) nuisance; (5) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment; (6) negligence; (7) breach of contract; (8) violation of FEHA; (9) violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act; (10) Violation of Santa Monica Municipal Code, § 4.56.020 et seq.; and (11) violation of Santa Monica Municipal Code, § 4.56.030 et seq.

Defendant now moves to strike the Complaint’s allegations requesting punitive damages.  Plaintiff opposes the motion and Defendant replies.

ANALYSIS

1.     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.) 

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”].) 

Here, the Complaint alleges:

7. On October 9, 2021, Plaintiff and Amanda Kuo (“Kuo”) entered a rental agreement with Defendant for the Premises until March 31, 2022, at $2,500 per month rent. Residential Leasing Requirements Ordinance (the “RLRO”), Santa Monica Municipal Code § 6.22.060, requires a minimum lease term of one year for most residential tenancies. However, Defendant did not register this tenancy with the Rent Control Board, nor did he provide either the Information Sheet to Plaintiff or Kuo at the time they signed their lease. Kuo vacated in February 2022, and Plaintiff located a new roommate, Sean Frazier (“Frazier”). On February 28, 2022, Plaintiff and Frazier entered into another short-term rental agreement with Defendant for a period of five months through July 31, 2022.

8. On March 14, 2023, Plaintiff sent an email to Defendant asking if she could replace Frazier with a new roommate named Robert Lacey (“Lacey”) beginning April 1, 2023, as is her right under the Rent Control Law § 1806 (a)(2). On March 21, 2023, Defendant approved Lacey as a tenant. However, Defendant presented Plaintiff with yet another proposed new lease, raising the rent from $2,500 to $3,200, in violation of the Rent Control Law, falsely claiming that her lease with Frazier was no longer valid. The proposed lease would have made Plaintiff the only permitted occupant. Defendant also conditioned any repairs on Plaintiff signing the new lease, and told her that if she did not agree, she would have to find a new place to live. Defendant then badgered Plaintiff for days through text messages and emails to pressure her to sign the new lease. It was at this point that Plaintiff sought legal advice, learned that her apartment was rent-controlled, and contacted the Rent Control Board.

9. On March 31, 2023, Plaintiff emailed Defendant that she would not agree to sign a new lease because she had learned that her existing lease was still valid under the Rent Control Law. Defendant responded, “after careful consideration, I’m not allowing any roommate since we do not have a valid agreement”, claiming that since Frazier moved out, the 2022 lease is “null and void.” Defendant demanded that Plaintiff financially requalify for the tenancy based on her income alone, something that she is not legally required to do under the Rent Control Law.

10. On March 31, 2023, the Rent Control Board (“the Rent Board”) wrote a letter to Defendant, informing him that his demand that Plaintiff signs a new lease with a $700 rent increase violated the Rent Control Law and gave him 15 days to register the tenancy of Unit C with the Rent Control Board. Instead of complying with the Rent Board’s letter, Defendant sent another email to Plaintiff informing her that he was increasing her rent from $2,500 to $2,640 starting May 1, 2023.

11. On April 10, 2023, the Rent Board wrote Defendant another letter about Unit C, reminding him that he had still failed to register Plaintiff’s tenancy, failed to rescind the rent increase, and even issued a new rent increase notice of $140, all in violation of the Rent Control Law. That same day, Defendant emailed Plaintiff, claiming again that her 2022 lease was “null and void”, knowing very well that this was untrue. Defendant wrote that Plaintiff would have to move out if she did not sign the new lease by the end of April.

12. On April 13, 2023, Plaintiff asked Defendant for permission to have a roommate move into Unit C on May 1, 2023. In response, Defendant emailed Plaintiff the proposed new lease again, and requested Plaintiff provide him with financial documents to demonstrate she could afford the rent on her own and an additional security deposit of $1,200. Defendant wrote: “Before the new lease takes effect, NO other occupancy for any purposes for any length and reason is NOT allowed.” He gave her two options: return Unit C to him vacant or sign a new agreement, giving her 15 days to decide. As a result, Plaintiff lost another viable roommate opportunity. The same day,

13. On April 19, 2023, the Rent Board wrote Defendant a third letter about Unit C, informing him that he is not permitted by the Rent Control Law to require Plaintiff to sign a new lease that includes a provision that would limit occupancy of the unit to just Plaintiff, as having a roommate is a housing service that could merit the Rent Control Board granting a rent decrease to Plaintiff worth 50% of the rent.

14. On April 28, 2023, Defendant also finally registered the tenancy in Unit C that had begun in 2021 with the Rent Control Board. On April 30, 2023, Defendant wrote Plaintiff an email conceding that she did not need to sign a new lease, allowing her to have one roommate and informing her that her rent would be $2,649.50 beginning June 1, 2023.

15. July 15, 2023, Defendant informed Plaintiff that she could have Kelly McCann move in to replace Frazier “as long as she has no special needs (medical, mental and physical) that requires special care and handling.” On December 3, 2023, Kelly McCann moved out. Plaintiff emailed Defendant on December 30, 2023, requesting to replace her roommate, as she is entitled to replace a departed roommate under her lease on a one-for-one basis under the Rent Control Law. On December 17, 2023 and January 7, 2024, Defendant emailed Plaintiff, insisting that for her next roommate, she disclose to that person that she has a dispute with Defendant; that she is pursuing a mold case and filing for “substandard states”; and that she sign a release to that effect.

16. On January 9, 2024, the Santa Monica Deputy City Attorney wrote an email to Defendant, informing him that the conditions he was placing on Plaintiff getting a new roommate are impermissible and unreasonable, and in violation of Rent Control Law, Section 1806(a)(2). She informed Defendant that his unlawful refusal to allow Plaintiff to have a roommate to share half of the rent would constitute another violation of the THO, as it appeared that his refusal is in bad faith and could result in Plaintiff having to relinquish her rent-controlled apartment due to the rent burden. The Santa Monica Deputy City Attorney requested that Defendant confirm in writing by January 14th that he would allow Plaintiff a roommate without imposing unlawful conditions.

17. On January 14, 2024, Defendant responded to the Santa Monica Deputy City Attorney but did not remove any of his conditions for allowing a roommate. He wrote in pertinent part, “You cannot deny my rights to protect myself, especially with the recent events, and ignore other’s rights just because you want to keep her here no matter what? Violating how many people’s rights to protect one? As far as I’m concerned, she has the right to stay and have a roommate as long as our rights and protection are not ignored.” Defendant never informed Plaintiff that her roommate request was unconditionally approved, worrying Plaintiff that she could be evicted if she got a roommate; or, if she did not, for nonpayment of rent due to being unable to afford the unit on her own.

HABITABILITY DEFECTS

18. On March 21, 2023, Plaintiff sent an email to Defendant with a list of necessary repairs to her unit, which included but was not limited to the following: “termites in my bedroom”; “Broken sink sprayer in kitchen sink”; and “mold in the in the wall under the kitchen sink”.

19. On March 31, 2023, Plaintiff again informed Defendant by email that there was mold under the kitchen and bathroom sinks and bathroom baseboards. She asked Defendant to have someone who specializes in mold remediation do the work because she has medical disabilities that make her highly sensitive to chemicals and mold.

20. On May 1, 2023, Plaintiff sent another email to Defendant stating that she believed there was an active leak in the pipes in the bathroom and again mentioned her health sensitivity to mold.

21. On May 3, 2023, Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s reasonable accommodation request by email stating: “If you have special conditions (based on what you said) and require special care & attention you should have mentioned them in your application not two years later after the Rent Increase Notice. I would have advised against you moving in because it is an old building with lots of plants, trees, and flowers in the sounding, and Garbage cans next to your Window, maybe it is not a wise choice for someone with a respiratory issue….” (Emphasis added.)

22. On August 20, 2023, water poured through the roof of the Property into the walls of Unit C, flooding the kitchen and damaging the cabinets. Plaintiff informed Defendant the next day and requested that Defendant come to the unit to assess the mold.

23. In early September 2023, Plaintiff hired a mold inspector who took moisture readings, confirming high levels of moisture. Plaintiff also contacted the Santa Monica Code Enforcement Division. On September 7, 2023, Santa Monica Code Enforcement Officer Benson Reed confirmed even higher moisture readings (70-100% wet) in the bathroom and kitchen ceilings/walls than Plaintiff’s inspector had found, and issued a Notice of Violation, ordering Defendant to: “Locate the source causing the moisture [and] [r]emediate any conditions causing the moisture/dampness (permits may be required).” Reed did not authorize Defendant to open the walls in Unit C.

24. On September 7, 2023, Plaintiff again emailed Defendant, requesting that he hire a professional company to safely remediate the mold because opening the walls would become a dangerous health hazard for her. She told Defendant that there needs to be containment of the contaminated area and HEPA filters, and she asked that Defendant temporarily relocate her as a reasonable accommodation to her disability. Defendant ignored Plaintiff’s reasonable accommodation request again, and informed her that he was sending a crew the next day to start repairs. Out of concern for her health and worried he would open the walls without taking any precautions to contain the mold contamination, Plaintiff declined to have Defendant start the work, asking to postpone to the following week.

25. On or about September 14, 2023, Plaintiff received a mold report from BH Environmental, whom she hired herself, showing extremely elevated levels of Penicillium/Aspergillus, a particular toxic mold, in the bathroom of the Premises. Plaintiff sent the report to Defendant, again asking that he hire a mold professional. She informed Defendant that she was experiencing chest pain and lung constriction, and she gave Defendant a letter from her doctor, verifying that she is immune compromised.

26. On September 23, 2023, without addressing Plaintiff’s health concerns, Defendant sent Plaintiff an email, accusing her of causing damage to the Property by delaying repairs for 15 days. Three days later, on September 26, 2023, Plaintiff emailed Defendant stating that the water damage was due to the roof leak, not her fault, and she offered to provide names of experts to remediate the toxic mold. She even offered to pay for the remediation, having obtained several repair estimates.

27. Defendant ignored any risk to Plaintiff’s health as well as her offer to pay; instead, notifying her by email that he was entering on September 28, 2023, to make repairs. Plaintiff remained very concerned that Defendant would simply open the walls and expose her to toxic mold, something she could not risk.

28. On September 27, 2023, Plaintiff sent Defendant by email a more formal written request for reasonable accommodation that he not begin work on her unit and wait until he hires a mold professional; that he not conduct any mold remediation without proper containment as recommended by a certified mold professional; that he provide her and her roommate temporary accommodation during the remediation process; that he test the unit to ensure it is free of mold prior to their return; and that he waterproof the roof, so it does not continue to leak.

29. Defendant did not respond to the reasonable accommodation request. Instead, on September 28, 2023, he emailed Plaintiff that he had made “all possible attempts” to resolve the problem, but she “hindered his efforts and delayed.”

30. On September 28, 2023, the Santa Monica Deputy City Attorney, sent Defendant a letter reiterating Plaintiff’s request for reasonable accommodation, informing him that the refusal to make a reasonable accommodation to rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford a person with a disability equal opportunity to use and enjoy any dwelling violates federal, state, and local law, specifically, the Santa Monica Anti-Discrimination Ordinance, § 4.28.030 (g). The Santa Monica Deputy City Attorney informed Defendant that he has a legal obligation to engage in the “interactive process” with Plaintiff to find a reasonable accommodation to her disability, and to confirm that he understands his obligations and would do so. Because Defendant had provided notice to enter only by email, the Santa Monica Deputy City Attorney also informed him in her September 28th letter that he is required to provide a 24-hour written notice of entry and that an email does not suffice, referring him to Civil Code § 1954.

31. On September 29, 2023, Defendant responded to the Santa Monica Deputy City Attorney in an email, stating: “1836 Euclid St. is a 90-year-old building and Unit C is not a suitable place for someone with a rare immune disorder. This is NOT discrimination against handicapped persons, this is the limitation this property has to accommodate.” Defendant also wrote in his email to the City that when Plaintiff moved in, she did not disclose her disability, and admitted that he had also asked Plaintiff whether her roommate had a special medical or mental condition that required special handling, treatments, or accommodation.”

32. On October 24, 2023, the County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Division, issued an order to Defendant to address the mold condition no later than November 14, 2023. Defendant failed to comply with the order.

33. The Santa Monica Deputy City Attorney wrote Defendant another letter on October 29, 2023, reiterating that he is required by law to engage in a dialogue with Plaintiff to identify an accommodation that would address her health concerns about mold in the unit. The Santa Monica Deputy City Attorney also informed Defendant that it is unlawful to make discriminatory statements to or about his tenants based on disability. She further informed Defendant that Plaintiff was not legally required to disclose her disability to him when she applied for the tenancy. She also informed Defendant that it is illegal to state that his Property is not suitable for persons with disabilities.

34. On October 31, 2023, Defendant emailed Plaintiff and various city officials that, due to Plaintiff’s medical condition, he decided it would be best to address the mold infestation by opening and going through an exterior wall, not from inside.

35. On November 14, 2023, Defendant removed all the stucco from the back of Unit C without first applying for and receiving a City permit, right before the winter rains began. Code Enforcement Officer Reed issued a “Stop Work Order” the same day, insisting Defendant obtain proper permits. The plastic covering that Defendant placed over the area where the stucco was removed is not secure and has left the building exposed to rain throughout the winter.

36. On November 17, 2023, Plaintiff informed Defendant that on November 14, 2023, when it rained, the roof leaked again. Plaintiff also informed Defendant by email: “The smell of mold in the unit last night and today is about 3x as bad as it was previously. And my lungs have never felt this bad in my entire life. This is an emergency situation. Mr. Defendant, Lee Brooks has offered you a free consultation. He is truly an expert in these matters, and we need an expert. Will you please schedule that consult, and can we please get this situation fixed?”

37. On November 20, 2023, Defendant emailed Plaintiff, demanding copies of her medical records; asking intrusive questions about her disability; accusing her of lying about her disability and the existence of the mold. Defendant has not done any professional testing to contradict the report from Priority Lab provided by Plaintiff on or about September 14, 2023.

38. On December 4, 2023, Defendant served Plaintiff by email with a 24-hour “annual inspection” notice despite having been informed by the Santa Monica Deputy City Attorney in writing on September 28, 2023 that “state law requires a written 24-hour notice of entry; an email does not suffice….” Upon receipt, Plaintiff emailed Defendant that the City had informed him that these types of inspections must be in writing and sent him a link to Civil Code § 1954. In response the next day, Defendant served a written 24-hour notice to inspect on December 6th, stating a new reason: to perform a mortgage lender inspection.

39. On March 20, 2024, Plaintiff emailed Defendant about a termite problem, attaching a photograph of the droppings. Plaintiff wrote: “There is a termite issue in the bathroom. I discovered a pile of termite droppings in the southwest corner of the bathroom this morning.”

40. Defendant came to the unit on March 25, 2024. He entered the unit and told Plaintiff it was just a “pile of dust.” He then vacuumed up the termite droppings. As Defendant was leaving, Plaintiff informed him that the pilot light on her gas heater was out and that she had no heat. Defendant responded that she should just push the red button. Plaintiff tried that and then followed Defendant outside to say that the heater still did not work. Defendant walked into a storage room, ignoring her.

41. On April 2, 2024, Plaintiff discovered another place in her unit with a large amount of termite droppings, so she emailed Defendant again and asked him if he was going to address the actual termite problem. She also told him that her gas heating unit was still not working and that it was cold, so she wanted it to be fixed. Defendant responded the next day, accusing Plaintiff of making false statements and sounding a false alarm. He also falsely accused Plaintiff of using her apartment “for commercial purposes.”

42. In her April 2, 2024 email, Plaintiff also wrote to Defendant: “And the part that is by far the most concerning, as it is negatively impacting my health, is the mold in the bathroom. The stench of mold in there is always strong and terrible, as the mold has been proliferating freely since the roof leaked in August 2023. There is also a strong stench of mold when I open the cupboard in the SW corner of the kitchen. I'm still waiting for you to send someone for professional remediation.”

43. In addition to the issues described above, Plaintiff does not have functioning smoke detectors as required by California Health and Safety Code section 13113.7. Plaintiff first informed Defendant orally that the three smoke detectors in the unit were not working in March 2023. Defendant was put on notice of the issue again when Plaintiff filed a petition for decreased housing services with the Rent Control Board on May 25, 2023. The issue was raised again during the mediation session with the Rent Control Board on June 28, 2023. Defendant continued to ignore the issue, and Plaintiff continued to request functioning smoke detectors in writing on August 14, 15 and 25 of 2023. On August 30, 2023, Defendant installed new units, which Plaintiff subsequently learned were only carbon monoxide detectors. To date, Plaintiff still does not have functioning smoke detectors in her unit.

44. As of the date of the filing of this lawsuit, Defendant has done nothing more to address the toxic mold in the Premises. There are still holes in Plaintiff’s bathroom wall, from which she is able to see straight through to the alley outside. Defendant has done no mold testing or remediation, and he has not temporarily relocated Plaintiff to ensure she would not be exposed to toxic mold, which Plaintiff believes is endangering her health.

DECREASED HOUSING SERVICES

45. From the inception of her tenancy, Plaintiff was free to use the communal outdoor space, an amenity that was included in her rent. On May 3, 2023, Defendant took this amenity away from Plaintiff. That day, Defendant emailed Plaintiff: “Please remove your belongings from Front Yard, Side Yard, Back yard, and all common areas by mid-May …whatever is left will be discarded and the person will be responsible for removal, disposal cost, and any lost, damaged, or missing item.” Plaintiff complied but was forced to sell her bicycle. Defendant also removed Plaintiff’s access to a walkway on the north side of the building, outdoor lighting (creating a safety problem), and outdoor furniture. This appeared to be in retaliation for Plaintiff’s (and other tenants’) complaints to the City and Plaintiff’s requests for repairs as well as a reasonable accommodation to her disability.

46. In February 2024, Defendant took away several amenities included in Plaintiff’s tenancy since she moved in. This took place the same month that Plaintiff’s rent was decreased by the Rent Control Board. On February 8, 2024, Defendant locked the laundry room door, removing Plaintiff’s (and the other tenants’) access to the laundry facilities.

47. On February 13, 2024, Plaintiff emailed Defendant, requesting that he unlock the laundry room door. He responded two days later that the laundry is not part of her unit, not a listed amenity; that it was left behind by a previous tenant; and, that it is not safe to use because it was leaking gas. He told the tenant residing in the bootleg unit a different story. Defendant also informed Plaintiff that he would no longer service her water filtration system since that was also not an amenity, just left behind by a prior tenant. This statement was false as Defendant’s own company installed the water filtration system and did so in other units.

48. On April 28, 2024, Plaintiff emailed Defendant that her refrigerator was “not working”, and requested that Defendant send a repair person. McGranahan also wrote an email the same day , reminding Defendant of his duty to provide a functioning refrigerator. Defendant responded that he would only respond if the “City verifies that unit C Fridge needs repair”.

49. On May 3, 2024, Defendant entered the Premises with an employee purportedly to repair the refrigerator, but also took video of Plaintiff’s personal belongings, including in the bathroom, the shower, the interior of the closet in the living room.

50. During Plaintiff’s tenancy Defendant has generally failed to serve written 24 hour written notices to enter the unit, sending, instead texts and emails (such as the one on September 28th), or just showing up at the door. He has also entered the Unit C under false pretenses and for purposes not permitted by state law, including for “general inspections.”

51. Defendant was, at all times, fully aware that he, acting as owner, manager and operator at the Subject Property, had failed to maintain it to the standard of habitability as required by law.

52. Plaintiff did not cause or contribute to the substandard conditions described herein and had fulfilled her obligations as a tenant.

53. Defendant had actual and constructive knowledge of these conditions at the Premises and the Property and failed to cure the conditions listed herein.

54. Plaintiff has repeatedly notified Defendant and his agents, both orally and in writing of the dangerous conditions listed above, among others, and requested that Defendant have them repaired. Despite these requests, Defendant failed and/or refused to repair the conditions, and/or have done so in a negligent and/or unreasonable fashion and in bad faith.

55. Defendant have exhibited wanton and malicious disregard for Plaintiff’s health and wellbeing by failing to cure the dangerous and uninhabitable conditions.

56. As a direct and proximate result of the above conduct and resultant conditions in the Premises, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer mental and emotional pain and distress, including, but not limited to, embarrassment, humiliation, discomfort, exacerbation and annoyance, all to her general damage in an amount to be proven at trial.

57. As a direct and proximate result of the above acts by Defendant, Plaintiff has paid, and continues to pay, excessive rent for the Premises.

58. As a direct and proximate result of the above acts by Defendant, Plaintiff suffered loss of use of the Premises to her general damage in an amount to be proven at trial.

59. Defendant endeavored to recover possession of the Premises in bad faith through unlawful harassment and other means, including but not limited to the following actions:

a. Refusing to perform effective repairs of the conditions which rendered the Premises uninhabitable;

b. Demanding rent while the Premises were uninhabitable;

c. Seeking to force Plaintiff to vacate the Premises by permitting the Premises to fall into and/or remain in a condition that was a threat to the health and safety of Plaintiff, in an effort to recover the apartment;

d. interrupting, terminating and failing to provide housing services required by state and local law;

e. substantially and directly interfering with Plaintiff’s right to quiet enjoyment or a rental housing unit;

f. interfering with Plaintiff’s right to privacy;

g. influencing or attempting to influence Plaintiff to vacate the Premises through fraud, intimidation or coercion; and

h. other repeated acts or omissions of such significance as to substantially interfere with or disturb the comfort, repose, peace or quiet of any person lawfully entitled to occupancy of such dwelling unit and that cause or are likely to cause, or are intended to cause any person lawfully entitled to occupancy of a dwelling unit to vacate such dwelling unit or to surrender or waive any rights in relation to such occupancy.

60. As a direct and proximate result of the above-mentioned conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continue to suffer damages, all in an amount to be proven.

61. As a direct and proximate result of the above conduct, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer the loss of use of the Premises, and is entitled to attorneys’ fees, and other special damages.

62. Defendant’s conduct was without right or justification and done for the purpose of depriving Plaintiff of her right to possession of the Premises. Defendant engaged in the above-described conduct with the knowledge that the conduct was without right or justification and without regard for the fact that it would cause injury to Plaintiff, notwithstanding their obligation to comply with applicable statutes providing for quiet possession and enjoyment of the Premises.

(Complaint ¶¶ 7-62.)

            Thus, the Complaint is replete with specific examples of Defendant repeatedly (1) stating he did not believe his apartment building was suitable for tenants with respiratory disabilities, like Plaintiff; (2) unlawfully attempting to raise Plaintiff’s rent in violation of local rent control ordinances; and (3) ignoring Plaintiff’s habitability complaints, apparently in retaliation. 

            These allegations are sufficient to demonstrate a conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights to support Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons stated, the Court denies Defendant’s Motion to Strike.

Further, the Court orders Defendant to file and serve an Answer to the Complaint on or before January 13, 2025.

Further, on the Court’s own motion, the Court continues the Case Management Conference and the Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service from January 6, 2025 to March 17, 2025 at 8:30 A.M. in Department 207.  All parties shall comply with California Rules of Court, rules 3.722, et seq., regarding Initial and Further Case Management Conferences.  In particular, all parties shall adhere to the duty to meet and confer (Rule 3.724) and to the requirement to prepare and file Case Management Statements (Rule 3.725).    

Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s orders and file the notice with a proof of service forthwith. 

DATED:  December 17, 2024                                                ___________________________

                                                                                          Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court