I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff Danielle Lawana Williams (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Southern Hotel, L.P., Single Room Occupancy Housing Corporation, and Does 1 through 30 for (1) Breach of Contract/Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment/Warranty of Habitability, (2) Tortious Breach of The Implied Warranty of Habitability, (3) Negligence, (4) Violation of California Civil Code Section 1942.4, (5) Violation of Unfair Business Practices, and (6) Tenant Harassment. 

Defendant Southern Hotel, L.P. (“Defendant”) moves to strike the allegations for punitive and exemplary damages in Paragraphs 49 and 67, and to strike the prayer for punitive damages.  

 Plaintiff opposes the motions, and Defendant filed a reply. 

II. MOTION TO STRIKE 

Before filing a motion to strike, the moving party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who has filed the pleading subject to the motion to strike and file a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435.5(a).) 

The Court finds Defendant has not fulfilled this requirement prior to filing the motion to strike. (Hodge Decl. ¶3.) A single written communication to Plaintiff’s counsel does not sufficiently satisfy the meaning of section 435. Nonetheless, a determination by the court that the meet and confer process was insufficient shall not be grounds to grant or deny the motion to strike. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435.5(a)(4).) The Court will consider the motion on its merits.  

The court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782 [“Matter in a pleading which is not essential to the claim is surplusage; probative facts are surplusage and may be stricken out or disregarded”].)  The court may also strike all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with California law, a court rule, or an order of the court.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).)    

Defendant moves to strike allegations relating to and the prayer for punitive damages. A plaintiff can recover punitive damages in tort cases where “the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.”  (Civ. Code § 3294, subd. (a).)  

Here, the complaint alleges in pertinent part the following. Plaintiff entered into a written lease agreement with Defendant to reside at Unit 106 (the “Subject Property”). (Compl. ¶ 10). Throughout her tenancy, the Subject Property lacked basic characteristics necessary for human habitation (Id. ¶ 13.) Plaintiff constantly and consistently complained to Defendant about the untenantable conditions, namely inadequate weather protection, inadequate plumbing, dampness and mold, inadequate sanitation, lack of heating and ventilation, vermin infestation, structural hazards, nuisance, inadequate mechanical equipment, failure to maintain premises in a good and safe condition, and harassment. (Id. ¶ 14.) Plaintiff references a number of civil codes and health and safety codes pertaining to each condition alleged. (Ibid.) Further, Plaintiff alleges the Subject Property failed city inspections throughout her tenancy, and specifies a series of violations found in her unit. (Id. at ¶ 16.) The complaint pleads in detail the specific issues of the Subject Property regarding water leaks and chronic mold, heating and ventilation, unsanitary common area and vermin infestation, physical defects, reduction in services, lack of safety, trespass, crimes, mismanagement and harassment. (Id. ¶ 17-23.) 

Defendant argues that Plaintiff fails to allege that the complained of conditions were present in her unit. The Court disagrees. The above summary of Plaintiff’s allegations sufficiently connects the issues raised with the unit Plaintiff rented, and it is sufficiently pled to place Defendant on notice of the factual disputes against it. Further, there is no requirement that Plaintiff must plead how Defendant could have completely eradicated the conditions in order for Plaintiff to maintain claims against it. 

Defendant also contests the truth of the pleadings that Defendant did undertake efforts to remedy the issues, and argues Defendant did nothing to make the conditions worse. However, Defendant’s reliance on documents attached to its counsel’s declaration to contest the truth of the matter is extrinsic evidence beyond the scope of this motion. The Court’s review is limited to the face of the pleadings or by judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437.) Defendant neither requested judicial notice, nor will this Court judicially notice the documents based merely on Defendant’s reference to Evidence Code 452(h) raised only in the reply. The Court will not consider any arguments premised upon the use of extrinsic evidence. 

Lastly, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has not shown the conduct was done with malice. In California, nonintentional conduct is within the definition of malicious conduct, in which punitive damages are available where a party intentionally performs an act from which he knows, or should know, it is highly probable that harm will result. (Ford Motor Co. v. Home Ins. Co. (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 374, 381.) Reading the complaint in its entirety, Plaintiff alleges she repeatedly informed Defendant of the uninhabitable conditions and, due to Defendants’ failure to remediate despite knowledge of the conditions, Plaintiff suffered injury to her physical and mental health. (Compl. ¶¶ 14, 27-28.) The specific allegations are sufficient to support a claim for punitive damages. (See Penner v. Falk (1984) 153 Cal. App. 3d 858, 867 ["The pleadings sufficiently allege facts setting forth long existing physical conditions of the premises which portend danger for the tenants. The pleadings also set out that respondents knew of those conditions for up to two years, had power to make changes, but failed to take corrective and curative measures. If proven, these allegations would support an award of punitive damages."].)