Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 22STCV20568, Date: 2022-09-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV20568    Hearing Date: September 15, 2022    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:                 Defendant’s Demurrer

Moving Party:          Defendant LA Properties Heffesse LLC (“Defendant”)

Resp. Party:             Plaintiffs Amilcar Avila, Yeri Tatiana Aguilera, Amilcar Osnar Aguilera, and Ashley Aguilera by and through her guardian ad litem, Yeri Tatiana Aguilera (“Plaintiffs”)

Defendant LA Properties Heffesse LLC’s Demurrer is OVERRULED.

Defendant LA Properties Heffesse LLC’s Motion to Strike is DENIED.

I.           BACKGROUND

On June 23, 2022, Plaintiffs Amilcar Avila, Yeri Tatiana Aguilera, Amilcar Osnar Aguilera, and Ashley Aguilera by and through her guardian ad litem, Yeri Tatiana Aguilera filed a complaint against Defendant LA Properties Heffesse, LLC alleging the following causes of action:

1.           Breach of Contract

2.           Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability

3.           Nuisance

4.           Negligence

5.           Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

6.           Wrongful Eviction

7.           Violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 1950.5(l)

On August 18, 2022, Defendant LA Properties Heffesse, LLC demurred to the Fifth Cause of Action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress on the grounds that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action under CCP § 430.10(e) and is vague, ambiguous, and uncertain under CCP § 430.10(f). (Demurrer, p. 2:2—3:17.)

On August 18, 2022, Defendant LA Properties Heffesse, LLC moved the Court for an order to strike paragraphs 39, 44, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 and 63, and Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages.  (Motion to Strike, p. 2:6 – p . 3:23.)

On August 31, 2022, Plaintiffs Amilcar Avila, Yeri Tatiana Aguilera, Ashley Aguilera, and Amilcar Osnar Aguilera, by and through her guardian ad litem, Yeri Tatiana Aguilera (“Plaintiffs”) opposed Defendant’s demurrer.

On August 31, 2022, Plaintiffs opposed Defendant’s motion to strike punitive damages.

On September 8, 2022, Defendant replied to Plaintiffs’ opposition to its demurrer and its motion to strike.

II.        ANALYSIS

A.          Legal Standard

A demurrer is a pleading used to test the legal sufficiency of other pleadings. (Cty. of Fresno v. Shelton (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 996, 1008–09; Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) It raises issues of law, not fact, regarding the form or content of the opposing party’s pleading. It is not the function of the demurrer to challenge the truthfulness of the complaint. (Unruh-Haxton v. Regents of Univ. of California (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 343, 365, as modified (May 15, 2008).) For purpose of the ruling on the demurrer, all facts pleaded in the complaint are assumed to be true, however improbable they may be. (CCP §§ 422.10, 589.)

A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack; or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311.) No other extrinsic evidence can be considered (i.e., no “speaking demurrers”). A demurrer is brought under Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10 (grounds), § 430.30 (as to any matter on its face or from which judicial notice may be taken), and § 430.50(a) (can be taken to the entire complaint or any cause of action within).

A demurrer may be brought under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (e) if insufficient facts are stated to support the cause of action asserted. A demurrer for uncertainty may be brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (f). “A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) “In general, ‘demurrers for uncertainty are disfavored, and are granted only if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.’” (Lickiss v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135.)

The demurring party must file with the court, and serve on the other party, the: (1) demurrer; (2) notice of hearing; (3) memorandum of points and authorities; and (4) proof of service. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1112(a), rule 3.1300(c), rule 3.1320; Code Civ. Proc., § 1005(b).) “A demurrer shall distinctly specify the grounds upon which any of the objections to the complaint . . .  are taken. Unless it does so, it may be disregarded.” (CCP § 430.60.)

"Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof . . ..” (CCP § 435, subd. (b)(1).) "The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (b) Strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court." (CCP § 436.) “The grounds for a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice." (CCP § 437, subd. (a).)

B.          Discussion

1.           Demurrer

“To state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress a plaintiff must show: (1) outrageous conduct by the defendant; (2) the defendant's intention of causing or reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress; (3) the plaintiff's suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (4) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant's outrageous conduct. Conduct, to be outrageous must be so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized society. In order to avoid a demurrer, the plaintiff must allege with great specificity the acts which he or she believes are so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community.” (Yau v. Santa Margarita Ford, Inc. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 144, 160–161 [cleaned up].)

The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges extreme and outrageous conduct by Defendant, Defendant’s reckless disregard of the probability of causing Plaintiffs’ emotional distress, Plaintiffs’ suffering of severe emotional distress, and actual and proximate causation of Plaintiffs’ suffering by Defendant’s conduct. (Complaint, ¶¶ 15-21; 52-57.) The Court finds that Plaintiffs specifically allege all elements for an intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action.

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to display factual evidence of Defendant’s intentions. (Demurrer, p. 6:27, 8:17-22.) However, the standard on demurrer asks whether Plaintiffs’ Complaint sufficiently alleges facts necessary to constitute cognizable causes of action. The Court may not test the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s evidence on demurer. Defendant suggests that the Court sustain its demurrer in part because it believes its remedial efforts to address the alleged habitability issues central to the present case display evidence of behavior that cannot be reasonably characterized as extreme, outrageous, or beyond all possible bounds of decency. (Reply (Demurrer), p. 4:10-17.)

Defendant can raise this argument, if evidence supports it,  on a Motion for Summary Adjudication.

Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled their fifth cause of action for IIED.

2.           Motion to Strike

The Court finds sufficient specificity in Plaintiffs’ Complaint to support their prayer for punitive damages. (Complaint, ¶¶ 15-21.) Plaintiffs allege that their unit had defective weatherproofing, defective plumbing, an accumulation of debris, defective flooring, an improper shower, lack of operating ventilation, deteriorated plaster, cracked baseboards and walls, peeling paint, a cockroach infestation, mold and water leaks.  (Complaint, ¶¶ 15-21.)  Plaintiffs allege that they informed Defendant of these problems.  (Id.) If a jury found that Defendant allowed sub-standard conditions to persist in the Plaintiffs’ unit, a jury would be within its right to award punitive damages.

The Court finds that the challenged portions of Plaintiffs’ Complaint should not be stricken pursuant to CCP § 436.

III.     CONCLUSION

Defendant LA Properties Heffesse LLC’s Demurrer is OVERRULED.

Defendant LA Properties Heffesse LLC’s Motion to Strike is DENIED.