Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 21STCV00906, Date: 2022-10-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV00906    Hearing Date: October 4, 2022    Dept: SEC

CARDENAS, et al. v. 2014-2 IH BORROWER, LP, et al.

CASE NO.:  21STCV00906

HEARING:  10/4/22 @ 1:30 PM

 

#7

TENTATIVE RULING

 

I.             Defendants 2014-2 IH Borrower, LP and THR Property Management, LP’s demurrer to Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint is SUSTAINED with 10 days leave to amend.

 

II.            Defendants 2014-2 IH Borrower, LP and THR Property Management, LP’s motion to strike is MOOT.

 

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

 

 

Defendants 2014-2 IH Borrower, LP and THR Property Management, LP demur to the 6th cause of action on the ground that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

 

Plaintiffs’ operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges that Plaintiffs moved into the Subject Property on December 31, 2017. (FAC ¶ 17.)  The house that they leased from Defendants contained rodents and other pests, which Defendants did not eradicate.  (FAC, ¶ 18.)  On January 3, 2019, the Los Angeles County Department of public Health notified Defendants that there was a health violation on the premises that needed to be corrected.  (FAC, ¶ 24.)  On January 10, 2019, Plaintiff Cardenas was being chased by a rat, and as she ran away from it, she jumped on the couch which fell backwards with her on it causing injuries.  (FAC, ¶ 25.)  Based thereon, the FAC asserts causes of action for:

 

1.    Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability

2.    Breach of Contract

3.    Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

4.    Negligence

5.    Premises Liability

6.    IIED

7.    Unfair Business Practices

 

6th CAUSE OF ACTION

 

IIED:  The elements are:  1) outrageous conduct by defendant; 2) intentional or reckless causing emotional distress; 3) severe emotional distress; and 4) causation.  (Nally v. Grace Community Church (1988) 47 Cal.3d 278, 300; Huntingdon Life Sciences, Inc. v. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA, Inc. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1259; Trerice v. Blue Cross of California (1989) 209 Cal. App. 3d 878, 883 - “court may determine in the first instance, whether the defendant's conduct may reasonably be regarded as so extreme and outrageous as to permit recovery”.)  A tenant may state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress by alleging that she has suffered extreme emotional distress as a result of a landlord's and property manager's knowing, intentional, and willful failure to correct defective conditions of a premises.  (Burnett v. Chimney (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1062.)

 

The court finds the FAC fails to allege sufficient facts to support Defendants’ “knowing, intentional, and willful failure to correct” the defective conditions.  (Burnett v. Chimney (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1062.)  The FAC alleges that at some point, Plaintiffs experienced pest infestations, but the FAC does not allege any dates or timeframes.  ¶¶ 18-19 allege that Defendants were not qualified to inspect or repair the pest infestations, and failed to remove the rodents and droppings.  The FAC appears to allege that Defendants responded in some form to Plaintiffs’ complaints, but fails to allege any facts such as when the complaints were made, and what actions were taken by Defendants.  Further, although a violation was issued on January 3, 2019 (FAC, ¶ 24), and Plaintiff suffered injuries on January 10, 2019 (FAC, ¶ 25), the FAC does not allege whether Defendants took action, if at all, to remediate the problem during the interim.
 

In opposition, Plaintiff Cardenas submits her declaration, attesting that Defendants did not respond for at least a year and even after being informed of the infestation by the Los Angeles Department of Public Health.  (Cardenas Decl., ¶¶ 5-6.)  However, these facts do not appear within the four corners of the complaint.

 

Accordingly, the court finds that the FAC fails to allege outrageous conduct sufficient for an IIED claim.  Demurrer is SUSTAINED with 10 days leave to amend.
 

Defendants’ accompanying motion to strike punitive damages is MOOT in light of the court’s grant of leave to amend.