Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 24STCV09200, Date: 2025-01-17 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 40 - MICHAEL J. SHULTZ  - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions.The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) email Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (smcdept40@lacourt.org) with a copy to the other party(ies) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no email is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. 

Case Number: 24STCV09200    Hearing Date: January 17, 2025    Dept: 40

24STCV09200 Maria Lopez, et al v. Gabriela Lawrence

Friday, January 17, 2025

[TENTATIVE] ORDER OVERRULING DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

I.       BACKGROUND

      This action arises from alleged violations laws and ordinances governing the habitability of rented premises. Plaintiffs allege 14 causes of action including a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (ninth cause of action.)

II.     LEGAL STANDARDS

      A demurrer tests the sufficiency of a complaint as a matter of law and raises only questions of law. (Schmidt v. Foundation Health (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1702, 1706

      The court may not consider contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. (Moore v. Conliffe (1994) 7 Cal.4th 634, 638.) Plaintiff is required to allege facts sufficient to establish every element of each cause of action. (Rakestraw v. California Physicians Service (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 39, 43.) Where the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, courts should sustain the demurrer. Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10(e); (Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1112, 1126.)

      Sufficient facts are the essential facts of the case stated, "with reasonable precision and with particularity that is sufficiently specific to acquaint the defendant with the nature, source, and extent of his cause of action.” (Gressley v. Williams (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 636, 643-644.)  Whether the Plaintiff will be able to prove the pleaded facts is irrelevant. (Stevens v. Superior Court (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 605, 609–610.)

III.    DISCUSSION

      Defendant demurs to the ninth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress on grounds the claim does not allege outrageous conduct necessary to support the claim. Plaintiffs argue the claim is adequately alleged. In reply, Defendant argues that Plaintiff alleges only that Plaintiffs experienced uninhabitable conditions which is insufficient to support the claim.

      To prevail on this claim, plaintiff must allege facts showing (1) extreme and outrageous conduct with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress, and (2) Plaintiff suffered severe or extreme emotional distress as a proximate result. (Christensen v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 868, 903.)

      Conduct is “extreme and outrageous” where a defendant (1) abuses a relation or position which gives him power to damage the plaintiff’s interest; (2) knows the plaintiff is susceptible to injuries through mental distress; or (3) acts intentionally or unreasonably with the recognition that the acts are likely to result in illness through mental distress.” (Agarwal v. Johnson (1979) 25 Cal.3d 932, 946.)

      Contrary to Defendant’s arguments, Plaintiffs allege more than that they experienced uninhabitable conditions. Plaintiffs allege that the conditions threatened health and safety, the conditions were not abated, which conditions included water intrusions and/or leaks within the rental unit, faulty electrical lighting, plumbing and drainage issues, and interruption of the water supply and heating facilities, such that Plaintiffs were constructively evicted. (Complaint, ¶ 50.)  Plaintiffs allege Defendant knew that this conduct violated California law. (Id.) Defendant allegedly blamed Plaintiffs for the condition of the premises. (Complaint, ¶ 55.) Defendant failed to give Plaintiffs their security deposit and has attempted to remodel the unit at Plaintiffs’ expense. (Complaint, ¶ 55.)

      If the court concludes that reasonable minds may differ as to whether the conduct rises to the level of “extreme and outrageous conduct,” then “it is for the jury, subject to the control for the court, to determine whether, in the particular case, the conduct has been sufficiently extreme and outrageous to result in liability.” (Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 493, 499.)

IV.   CONCLUSION

      Based on the foregoing, the demurrer to the complaint is OVERRULED. Defendant is ordered to file an answer within 10 days.