Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 24SMCV04342, Date: 2025-01-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV04342    Hearing Date: January 8, 2025    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

This premises liability case arises from allegations that Plaintiff Francesca Allegro (“Plaintiff”) was attacked by a criminal assailant at her apartment building.  The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges two causes of action for (1) premises liability and (2) negligent hiring, training, supervision, and control against Defendants 9015 & 9025 Rangley LP; Oakwood Realty Corporation d/b/a Rosewood Management; 1016 Sanborn LLC; Adam Corleto; and Richard Corleto. 

Moving Defendants 9015 & 9025 Rangley LP; Oakwood Realty Corporation d/b/a Rosewood Management; Adam Corleto; and Richard Corleto (“Moving Defendants”) move to strike the allegations pertaining to, and requests for, punitive damages. 

Plaintiff opposes the motion and Moving Defendants reply. 

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”].) 

Moreover, “the imposition of punitive damages upon a corporation is based upon its own fault.  It is not imposed vicariously by virtue of the fault of others.”  (City Products Corp. v. Globe Indemnity Co. (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 31, 36.)  “Corporations are legal entities which do not have minds capable of recklessness, wickedness, or intent to injure or deceive.  An award of punitive damages against a corporation therefore must rest on the malice of the corporation’s employees.  But the law does not impute every employee’s malice to the corporation.  Instead, the punitive damages statute requires proof of malice among corporate leaders:  the officers, directors, or managing agents.”  (Cruz v. Home Base (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 160, 167 [cleaned up].) 

Here, Plaintiff alleges:

1. The Plaintiff Francesca Allegro, brings this lawsuit which arises from Premises/Liability which occurred on January 12, 2024. The Plaintiff was severely injured and permanently damaged as a result of acts of commission and omission by Defendants; and each of them alleged herein, as a result of a Negligent Security of Defendants apartment complex. Plaintiff is a tenant, in an apartment-residence, located at 9017,1/4 Rangely A venue, West Hollywood, CA 90048. (Hereinafter, allegations in paragraph 1, is known as the Property, or the Event.; or the Premises).

2. The Property is owned, managed, leased, supervised, controlled, operated, maintained by Defendants, and each of them; This event occurred on the doorway of Plaintiff's apartment/ residence, as she was returning home. The Plaintiff was followed, and then physically attacked, assaulted, and battered by an outsider/ criminal assailant Hardy Leonel Arriaza (Hereinafter Arriaza)

3. Defendants including landlord, owner, management, failed to use reasonable care to protect their Plaintiff tenant, from the assailant's criminal conduct. Defendants could and should have reasonably anticipated such criminal conduct, given their knowledge of the prior history of misconduct and incidents on the premises and in the neighborhood, and Defendants acknowledgement of such occurrences.

4. Defendants failed to take adequate and reasonable security measures and safeguards to protect persons such as Plaintiff. Defendants recklessly exposed and failed to warn or protect the tenants from this same criminal assailant, (Arriaza) whom they had negligently allowed this person to do some maintenance on the property. Defendants should have known of his criminal and dangerous nature. It was foreseeable he would attack women on the property.

5. Defendants owned and managed multiple units in buildings on Rangely between Doheny Drive and Robertson Blvd, in West Hollywood. Plaintiffs' apartment complex has 3 units on the first floor and 3 units on the top level. Plaintiff's unit is located on the top level (2nd floor), a one-bedroom apartment; a middle unit with one unit on each side of her. The addresses for Plaintiffs specific apartment complex range from numbers 9015- 9017 with fraction for each unit.

[…]

11. Upon information and belief, Defendants, and each of them, at all times relevant to this matter, own(ed), manage( d), operate( d), leased, maintained, occupied , controlled, supervised, entrusted or were/are in some manner responsible for the premises which constitutes the apartment complex in which Plaintiff resides :9017 1/4 Rangely Avenue, West Hollywood, CA 90048 (the "Property" , Premises)

12. Upon Information and belief Adam Corleto, an individual and Richard Corleto, are individuals, who own( ed), manage( d) operate( d), control( ed) and supervise( d), entrusted, the property and are managerial agents, doing business and residing in the jurisdictional venue, 9017 1/4 Rangely Avenue, West Hollywood, CA 90048 (the Property, "Premises)

13. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Defendants, and each of them, at all times mentioned herein, operated, owned, leased, maintained, occupied, controlled supervised and managed the Property, Premises, and business.

[…]

20. Defendants owned and managed multiple units in buildings on Rangely between Doheny Drive and Robertson Blvd, in West Hollywood. Plaintiffs' apartment complex has 3 units on the first floor and 3 units on the top level, where Plaintiffs unit is located, a one-bedroom apartment; a middle unit with one unit on each side of her. The addresses for Plaintiffs specific apartment complex range from numbers 9015- 9017 with fraction for each unit.

21. Defendants and each of them negligently, carelessly and recklessly owned, entrusted, supervised, used, occupied, possessed, controlled, managed, maintained, supervised, leased, occupied, operated, engineered, entrusted, designed, devised, configured, installed, manufactured, and architected the premises at 9017,114 Rangely Avenue, West Hollywood, CA 90048, including the failure to have or maintain any security measures and safeguards, for the protection and safety of Tenants, including Plaintiff at the time of this event.

22. Thus at this property, at Tenant's unit on Rangely, there was: A FAILURE TO: MAINTAIN, INSTALL, OPERATE, MONITOR, AND SUPERVISE, adequate and reasonable security safeguards and measures for the property: As There was no security measures on plaintiffs property; no gate or fencing around the property; no working locked doors on the outside; no key cards, or no special sensors that had a code to only allow in tenants and not strangers, no security camera; no security guard; no lighting at night; no alarms; no doorman; no state of the industry protections for tenants.

23. Defendants were in fact encouraging and allowing strangers; potential criminals; and an assailant like Arriaza, to come on the property and cause harm, danger, damages, fear, threats, and anguish, to their own tenants whom they were obligated to protect, and whose safety should have been paramount to Defendants. These measures are substantial factors in Plaintiffs injuries and most likely would have prevented, deterred, and stopped a Criminal attack.

24. A simple lock says NO to a potential criminal suspect: you cannot enter to do harm the lock is a deterrent for entry by suspects. Locks and security measures also mean to suspected criminals- that there will be no escaping; if you make it on the property and You will not get out to escape, without sanction.; according to safety experts. The property's structure was completely open for strangers to enter anywhere from the front of the property and continue through to the alley and was in such condition, as the back door entry to the rear of the property was also open ; (and included a broken or non-working lock on the back door): or any stranger could enter from the alley and back of the property, to follow Plaintiff up her stairs, near the middle of the property and then assail her for sexual purposes.

25. Defendants should have not been deterred to make these expenditures and installations of security measures because of overhead or reduction of net profit; compared with the necessity of the security and safety of their tenants; which the law requires these minimum-security measures. Common sense and decency should control these decisions. Plaintiff and the other Rangely Tenants, cannot and do not have the authority or ability to make or install these necessary safeguards, in the common and outside building premises. It is only the Defendants, who have been entrusted, in essence, as fiduciaries for Tenants to accomplish these necessary tasks. These security tasks are also customary and reasonably practical in the industry of Apartment ownership and management

26. On January 12, 2024., the Plaintiff Francesca Allegro, was severely injured and permanently damaged as a result of acts of commission and omission by Defendants; and each of them alleged herein, as a result of Defendants' premises liability and negligence for maintaining and owning an apartment complex with open and obvious lack of security measures, safeguards, and precautions. This event, occurred on the doorway of Plaintiff own apartment, located at 9017,1/4 Rangely Avenue, West Hollywood, CA 90048. The Plaintiff was returning home. She was followed, by a criminal assailant Arriaza, as she was attempting to enter her own residence. Arriaza physically attacked, assaulted, battered and wrestled the Plaintiff to the ground, though she attempted to defend herself; Plaintiff sustaining serious and permanent injuries to her physical body and mind and emotional well-being. Arriaza had a rope with him at the time of the assault which was found after he left the premises. In retrospect it was clear Arriaza had been able to easily follow Plaintiff to her doorstep through easily accessible entry and exits doorways, an unobstructed, open space walkway, not controlled or closed by any gate, any monitoring or security measures-not even a simple lock on a door. Plaintiff suspected Arriaza was coming through her apartment to break-in and sexually assault or molest her.

27. The suspect, assailant, and now charged criminal, has a pending criminal trial on the harm he has created. This Criminal Defendant is known through the investigative reports of West Hollywood Branch of Los Angeles County Sheriff’s offices as Hardy Leonel Arriaza (Hereinafter Arriaza)

28. Defendants and each of them, including landlord, owner, management, failed to use reasonable care to protect Plaintiff, Francesca Allegro, their Tenant in their Apartment 9017 1/4 Rangley, from the assailant's criminal conduct. Defendants could and should have reasonably anticipated such criminal conduct, given their knowledge and the incidents of the prior history of misconduct on the premises and in the neighborhood. Defendants failed to take adequate and reasonable security measures and safeguards to protect persons such as Plaintiff. Defendants recklessly exposed and failed to warn or protect the tenants from this same criminal assailant, whom they had negligently allowed this person to do some maintenance on the property, with the knowledge of his criminal and dangerous nature, and it is foreseeable he would attack women on the property.

29. Prior Incidents to this Debacle Event of January 12, 2024: occurring at Defendants Property , including 9015- 9017 Rangely, but not limited to:

A). In October of 2021, there was a long discussion of complaints by, through an exchange of emails and correspondence between Plaintiff Francesca, other Tenants And Defendants Management represented by :

1) Kenny Pantig kenny@rosewoodmanagement.com(323) 408-1280; Office;

2) Shirley Martinez, office manager; and

3) Kristen Abitabile, of Defendants Rosewood Management, clearly demonstrating that the management had actual notice and knowledge of scary, incidents, of strangers, and outsiders' misconduct and invasion ; and acknowledging management's duty of control of premises was slipping away to the outsiders, homeless, intruders presence and activities on the premises.

30. The tenants, on information and belief: were mostly young women living in units, 9015-9017 Rangley; requesting locks, cameras, security equipment; additional1ighting; gated entrance; "scared to enter their apartment after hours" because of repeated suspicious criminal activity on the premises:

31. Examples of the correspondence noting the misconduct and dangerous incidents complained of by tenants, and received and acknowledged by Defendants and management, all before Francesca's incident (from 2020 to this Event) and injuries include, but not limited to:

1) Sunday night a strange creepy man wandering around and peeping into windows (upstairs and downstairs) Tenant Rachel, downstairs, also reported "and called the cops"

2) issues of homeless people walking around property and in the alley, as Alexia Ioannou a tenant informed management that a: homeless person living in the garage; trying to live i different apartments; and pulling on the units' doors; some outsider causing a breaking of a tenant' window

3) a new break in into the windows and screen of Plaintiff Francesca's Apartment, Tenants requesting new security measures, and precautions; new and better lighting, cameral signs property under surveillance, updates on gates; deterrents,

4) outsider/stranger "terrorizing everyone" according to Tenant Christian; seen o property multiple times, living in the garage.

5) According to the Complaints of Tenant Christian and Alexia Ioannou- called police stranger arrested, continues to return; Stranger/trespasser trying to open doors, pounding on them claiming he is FBI; multiple instances of trespassing; attempted break-ins; cops to property 3 times recently; homeless person living in garage- vacant and unlocked by management; trespasser after dark attempted entry into every single unit; and pulls on doors; an instance when tenant' windows broken into; inform management "building consists mostly of single women and we are very concerned for our safety"

6) Also, according to tenant Christian; hears another stranger go into, window pushed open forcefully into Thomas' unit from backyard area, and living there. Beseeches management for a security gate.

7) Tenant Sandeep Dhariwal, reports a Break in - into garage, in daylight reports all he private contentcontents (sic) in garage, stolen, including her $400.00 bike she reports to management

8) In November of 2021, Tenant Christian, asks management for any updates on security gates and lights; due to nothing being secured or upgraded as promised. Management company in emails acknowledges Christian's concern and have made landlords aware- of complaints and problems - management again promises upgrades- does not deliver on any security measures.

9) May of 2023 , Tenant Penelope Lane (Hereinafter Penny) notifies, management of trespassers, homeless man coming onto property asking for money- comes onto the properties from back street through unlocked black gate; wanders into courtyard; Penny feels very anxious.

10) Prior multiple incidents of trespassing, and attempted break-ins; homeless person living in vacant unlocked garage; More security incidents 9015-9025 Rangely (in email January 2024, and notes to management)

32. Management and Defendants are aware- of security breaches by the numerous complaints of incidents by tenants and by West Hollywood Sheriffs and police coming to the property numerous times, for the same complaints. Management and Defendants are aware of the danger to Tenants, and they promise in writing to take security measures and then do nothing. Defendants ultimately refused to take the necessary security measures before the injuries to Francesca.

33.For example management responds in email 10/14/21 "we are made aware; been in discussions with landlord who finishes saying "will send maintenance technicians to make property safer; implement more lights; will secure the gates, option of adding security gates; quotes for cameras; adding security, consultation security company;" however referring tenants to City Police and County Sheriff, to call 911 ; contact West Hollywood City Council.; to " Community Safety" link section of City West Hollywood website' Management/landlord neve does anything or institute any safety measures; . Only after Francesca's and Penny's attacks of January, of 2024, does management finally put a gate around one structure, Penny's but not Francisca' s property.

34. Defendants had a duty to install before this Event- additional security measures including but not limited to: 1) locks on doors; a working exterior, lockable, security gate around entire property with only Tenants allowed access and control; 2) better additional lighting; 3) protection for tenant's windows;4) installation of a metal security doors, windows on tenants units; 5) security cameras; and sign postings warning of camera and you are under surveillance;6) garage and parking security; 7) key cards for entrance and exits; 8) alarm system for security company or law enforcement alerted for stranger/ criminal misbehavior; 9) arrangements with neighborhood watch;, 10) West Hollywood Sheriff’s Department intermittent patrol of the street; 11) hiring of part time; evening security personnel; 12) consultation with security companies. Defendants took none of these security measures or steps.

35. Defendants represented to Plaintiff and Tenants that Management that they had a security company's recommendations for new security measures 3 years before this Event, based on their inspections. Defendants never followed or instituted such measures. It was only after this event, 3 years later that they did some basic safety measures. There were available options of very intelligent, reasonable, low- cost measures that would have made a difference and prevented the harm and tenant endangerment in this case. By their actions, and omissions, Defendants and Management was allowing and ceding control of their property to strangers, and criminals and endangering the lives of tenants, including Plaintiff and Penny.

36. Management and Defendants knew about or should have known about The following link: https://data.weho .org/dataset/West-Hollywood-Current-Crime-Data-Year-to-Date/awjs-gawv/data; which provides all the crimes occurring in West Hollywood on a yearly basis from City of West Hollywood, and reveals, dozens and dozens of crimes, misdemeanors felonies, larceny, burglaries, robberies, sex offenses, narcotic offensives, vandalism, vehicle stolen and break-ins, and the list goes on of a territory within a mile radius of this Property.

37. Management and Defendants also knew or should have known of crimes, attempted crimes, misdemeanors and felonies and complaints on the property and in the neighborhood, through a multitude of resources, ( which has been laser beamed into their eyes and consciousness) media and news outlets; Sherriff Department community outreach programs and community relations bulletins; and neighborhood apartment and homeowner associations and organizations; personal tenants' complaints, bulletins;, apartment associations, Beverly Hills Courier, and local newspapers; WEHO Times, West Hollywood News;(Westside Voice); Los Angeles Times, Local News Broadcasts, Channels 1, (Spectrum) 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11. West Hollywood Sheriff, Community Safety Section of City of West Hollywood website; ,Management and Defendants had all these resources highlighted by their own tenant's emails, in writing complaints; acknowledged and evidenced by management's own email responses attempting to calm tenants, but taking no concrete actions to firm up and install security measures.

38. After leaving Plaintiff apartment, and stealing her cell phone, criminal Arriaza, went to an adjacent, property owned by Defendants, another Apartment, Penelope (Hereinafter Penny) Lane, under Defendants- authority, ownership, management under 9015, 9017, 9025 and 9027 Rangely, West Hollywood. Arriaza, broke through her apartment, apparently with the intent to sexually rape or molest her; he confronted the young woman, who was present, though she escaped the apartment, he was found in her bathroom, - bathtub; having committed some sexual acts with himself, and flinging around her undergarments. Defendants lack of security measures and each of them are responsible for creating, maintaining, allowing an unsafe and dangerous condition, which was a foreseeably unsafe and dangerous premises, a hazard and unreasonable risk of harm to Plaintiffs and other tenants; Defendants were negligent in the use and maintenance of the premises, and such negligence was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs damages, harms, injuries,

39. Penny Lane's, Complaint filed in this adjoining matter: Case No. 24SMCV01986, filed 4/26/24, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, is relied upon to corroborate and confirms allegations in this second cause of action, and is incorporated by reference into this second cause of action. 40. Thus, Defendants had actual or constructive knowledge of the defective premises and knew or should have known that it would cause harm., endangerment to the lives of tenants, including Francesca and Penny. Defendants with this control and knowledge is negligent by failing to use reasonable care to keep the property in a reasonably safe condition; failing to use reasonable care to discover, inspect any unsafe conditions, and to install, repair, replace necessary security measures; or give adequate warning, of anything that could be reasonably expected to harm others.

41. Defendants failed in their Legal Duties to:

1) Exercise their duties of oversight, control and supervision.

2) Inspect and discover such unsafe conditions.

3) Upgrade, remedy, and ameliorate, and institute the security safeguards and measures.

4) Abide by industry standards and regulations.

5) Take other safety measures and safeguards,

6) Give adequate warnings of anything that could reasonably be expected to harm others

42. Thus, Defendants, for these acts of commission and omission, for their misconduct, harmed Plaintiffs by exposing them to these unsafe, hazardous conditions; and creating an unreasonable risk of harm to Plaintiffs. And thus, these acts and omissions by Defendants were a substantial factor in legally and proximately causing Plaintiffs damages.

43. It is alleged on information and belief, around the year 2018, Arriaza was hired by Defendants to perform maintenance services at the property. Arriaza's Father had performed maintenance duties for the Defendants on the property since 1989, and the son followed suit.

44. It was through Arriaza's employment at Defendant's property that Arriaza gained access to Tenants, units to perform services, which allowed him to become familiar with access points to all units, such as windows and doors. He also had the opportunity to watch, monitor, \ Plan, to obtain access to tenants, at times of vulnerable moments, while they were coming home, or staying at home, in the instances of Francesca and Penny. As mentioned, these-young ladies are very vulnerable to criminal assailants the way their property was set up with no security measures; in other words - sitting ducks. They were exposed to criminals, or even weird strangers and assailants on these properties, and those with wrongful sexual intents and purposes in assaulting them, due to management falling below the standard security and safety of the premises. Defendants also negligently trained Arriaza, by failing to forbid him to enter Plaintiff's apartments, when they are present or not present, failing to forbid him to approach or follow these women, touch, assault or batter them. - Defendants never explained to Arriaza, he would be sanctioned, penalized, fired, and or terminated for any such acts of disobedience and misconduct, including criminal behavior, sexual impropriety- battery. Thus, Defendants never instituted or enforced deterrent measures to Arriaza, or outside assailants when it came to security measures to protect their tenants.

45. Before Arriaza's employment with Defendants, there is evidence he was incarcerated on felony convictions for grand theft, receiving stolen property, and making criminal threats.

46. Adam Corleto, a principal of both Rangely and Oakwood, wrote to Penny, "we do thorough background checks on anyone who does work at the building", thus Defendants failed to follow their own standard procedure, and the general standard in the industry requiring owners and management in the business of Apartment leasing, to undertake and investigate criminal, background and references, of their employees or agents.

47. Thus, given Arriaza's criminal history, which Defendants ignored, neglected and shunned, there should be no surprise, that his patterns would be consistent, in fact completely foreseeable, that he would act again with the same criminal propensities and purposes, again with malfeasance towards Francisca and Penny. Defendants either had knowledge of Arriaza criminal behavior and history and negligently hired him as an employee and agent. In the alternative, if Defendants failed to conduct a background check, they were also negligent for this purposeful lack of knowledge. Defendants exercised a reckless disregard of discretion and judgement in employing Arriaza's, who was unfit for this type of career. Arriaza, had a criminal history, and continued his wayward behavior, which was ignored and not investigated upon by Defendants. Given these factors, Defendants are vicariously responsible for Ariaza's harms. This negligence of hiring, training, retaining, failing to control or supervise Arriaza, who continued this malfeasance and misconduct during his employment with Defendants, was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs harm and damages. They exposed and offered up on a platter Francisca and Penny to Arriaza, one could allege or contend as " a sacrificial offering". The Negligent hiring, training, supervision, retention, control of Arriaza by Defendants and each of them were a substantial factor in legally and proximately causing Plaintiffs damages.

48. The Event giving rise to this personal injury action caused Plaintiff to suffer various traumatic injuries. As a legal, direct, and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants and Does 1 through 20, Plaintiff suffered physical and mental injuries, general and special damages.

[…]

53. PUNITIVE AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES in accordance with the jurisdiction of this court. Based on the allegations asserted and explained, in Paragraphs 1-52 above, in the two causes of actions, Defendants conduct in excess of gross negligence in the management and failure to exercise or institute security measures; rise to the level of Defendants' despicable conduct, with a willful, conscious, reckless disregard of Plaintiff, Tenant Francesca Allegro's rights, physical safety, health, and happiness.- in fact endangered her very life . and thus, such punitive damages acting as a deterrent, justifies and merits the imposition of punitive and exemplary damages. Penner v Falk. 153 Cal App. 858 (1984)

54. California Civil Code 3294. where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant. 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. Defendants, in regard to their property, acted with malice, oppression and misrepresentation is explained in paragraphs 1- 52. In 2021 Defendants misrepresented to the tenants verbally and in email writing, that they would repair, install and institute security measures, protections, gate, lighting camera, locks; conspicuous roadblocks/obstacles, for strangers and criminals to enter the property; but never did. Defendant's misrepresentations are confirmed by their omissions and purposeful failure to act, that far exceeded a gross negligent conduct, - conduct which as the years went by, 1 year, 2 year, 3 years became embedded- baked in misrepresentations, that failed Francesca and Pe1my. - Defendants gave Tenants and Plaintiff a false sense of security, false promises, a bait and switch mechanism, to keep the tenants living in their property, taking Tenants rent, and never delivering the security measures. Defendants took advantage of Tenants, having an excellent location in West Hollywood and reasonable rent. , at the time; And Tenants were patiently waiting for the security measures, (no one wanted to move out of the Property); that never came. Defendants broke their promises, acted in despicable bad faith and a gross violation of the Tenants' safety, rights, security, dignity, lives, and to the detriment and hardships of -Tenants consumer expectations. Defendants, then, by not acting for 3_entire years before this Event occurred, no surprise, Defendants were a substantial factor in causing the injuries and harm to Francesca and Penny. "Chickens come home to roost "as for the Defendants, as the famous expression is alleged; the consequences of doing wrong catch up with the wrongdoer, but more importantly the wrongful punitive conduct caused the dreadful and anguishing consequences, harms and damages to Francesca and Penny

55.Section 3294 Defendants- as employers are liable for Punitive damages pursuant to subdivision (a), based upon acts of an employee of the employer, as 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. With respect to a corporate employer, the advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, ratification or act of oppression, fraud, or malice must be on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation., including in this Event, Adam Corleto and Richard Corleto, actual active, owners and managers and managing agents of the property, behind the corporate names. That Arriaza, with his criminal background, was unfit for the position of maintenance man on the property, and with the failure of Defendants not running a background check, is despicable conduct, ; and then to invite Arriaza to the property, and gain intimate knowledge of tenants and residences, with no security and no obstacles I or roadblocks for him to appear on his whim, like any stranger, or unknown assailant, through the years, is explained in detail in the second cause of action paragraphs 43- 52.

56. If Defendants in their answer contend Arriaza, was not working for them, which is contrary to the evidence, they are now faced with unknown suspicioconduct.lants, (sic) strangers, trespassers, interlopers, homeless people, unknown employees, working and living on their premises,( First Cause of action par 30-31) either with Defendants knowledge, consent and ratification and evidenced by their doing nothing to stop this conduct.. Or Defendant had no knowledge of these miscreant affairs and peoples- and a renunciation of their duty to inspect be present and control and maintain their own property. - (with at least 5 managers and 2 owners aligned to the property.); and a renunciation of their duty to secure and make safe the premises with effective security measures- which omissions damaged and endangered the lives, peace, security sanity, physical and emotional well being of Plaintiff., (sic) justifying punitive damages.

(FAC ¶¶ 1-5, 11-13, 20-48, 53-56.)

            Thus, Plaintiff has alleged many specific instances of past criminal conduct that were known by specific owners/managers of the premises.  Yet, Defendants allegedly acted with conscious or reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s (and the other tenants’) safety by either hiring Arriaza to work at the property, or failing to take basic steps to protect the residents from Arriaza’s attacks, despite their extensive knowledge of similar crime in the area and of Arriaza’s criminal history being public record.  This is sufficient to allege punitive damages.

            Moving Defendants argue that while they hired Arriaza’s father, they did not hire Arriaza to work at the property.  Whether Defendants actually hired Arriaza or otherwise failed to take reasonable steps to protect their tenants from Arriaza’s criminal acts are factual questions to be resolved at later stages of the litigation.  For pleading purposes, Plaintiff has alleged facts of oppression and malice with requisite particularity to withstand a motion to strike.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons stated, the Court denies Moving Defendant’s Motion to Strike punitive damages in its entirety. 

Further, the Court orders Moving Defendants to file and serve (an) Answer(s) to the FAC  on or before January 31, 2025. 

Further, on the Court’s own motion, the Court continues the Case Management Conference from January 10, 2025 to April 29, 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). 

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

DATED:  January 8, 2025                                                      ___________________________

                                                                                          Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court