Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 22NWCV00286, Date: 2022-10-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00286    Hearing Date: October 18, 2022    Dept: SEC

SARMIENTO v. HUNTINGTON PARK 607 LP

CASE NO.:  22NWCV00286

HEARING: 10/18/22 @ 10:30 AM

(**NOTE:  TIME OF HEARING IS CHANGED FROM 1:30 P.M. TO 10:30 A.M.)

 

#7

TENTATIVE RULING

 

I.             Defendant Huntington Park 607 LP’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint is SUSTAINED with 10 days leave to amend.

 

II.            Defendant Huntington Park 607 LP’s motion to strike is MOOT.

 

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

 

 

Defendant Huntington Park 607 LP demurs to the 5th cause of action on the ground that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

 

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that the premises that she leased was “usafe, unsanitary, unhealthy, uninhabitable, untenable, in a state of disrepair, and in gross violation of building, health and safety laws.”  (Complaint, ¶ 19.)  The City of Huntington Park and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health issued various orders requiring Defendants to make much-needed repairs, but these orders went unheeded. Defendants often would take as long as they wish to make repairs the City required and then the repairs made would be inadequate thus ineffective.” (Id., ¶ 39.)  Based thereon, the FAC asserts causes of action for:

 

1.    Breach of Warranty of Habitability

2.    Negligent Maintenance of Premises

3.    Nuisance

4.    Breach of Quiet Enjoyment

5.    IIED

 

5th 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 Complaint 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.)  ¶ 39 alleges that at some point, The City and County issued various orders requiring repairs.  Plaintiff admits that Defendants did “make repairs,” but the repairs were inadequate.  (Id.) The Complaint appears to allege that Defendant responded in some form to Plaintiff’s complaints, but fails to allege any facts such as when the complaints were made, and what actions were taken by Defendant. 

 

Accordingly, the court finds that the Complaint 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 and attorney’s fees is MOOT in light of the court’s grant of leave to amend.