Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 24STCV23521, Date: 2025-04-17 Tentative Ruling
The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.
Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.
Case Number: 24STCV23521 Hearing Date: April 17, 2025 Dept: 34
Defendants Joseph L. Lau and Mimi Lau’s Motion to
Strike portions of Plaintiffs’ complaint is GRANTED with leave to amend within 20 days.
Background
On September
12, 2024, Plaintiffs Medalia Villa, Edgar Montes de Oca Villa, Bryan Montes de
Oca Villa, Jennifer Montes de Oca Villa, and Genesis Irais Acosta
(“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants Joseph L. Lau, Mimi Lau,
Sau Bong Chan, Ann Ya-Ya Lau, John Kwan, Mary C. Kwan, Gordon Mah, and Franklin
Mah (“Defendants”) arising from Plaintiffs tenancy in Defendants’ property
located at 1620 W. 206th St., Torrance, CA 90501 (“Subject
Property”) alleging causes of action for:
1.
Violation of Civil Code § 1942.4;
2.
Tortious Breach of the Warranty of
Habitability;
3.
Private Nuisance;
4.
Business & Professions Code §
17200, et seq.;
5.
Negligence;
6.
Constructive Eviction; and
7.
Los Angeles Municipal Code § 45.33.
On February
14, 2025, Defendants Sau Bong Chan, Ann Ya-Ya Lau, and John Kwan filed an
answer to Plaintiffs’ complaint and a cross-complaint.
On February
21, 2025, Defendants Joseph L. Lau and Mimi Lau (“Moving Defendants”) filed
this Motion to Strike. On March 11, 2025, Plaintiffs filed an opposition. On March
17, 2025, Moving Defendants filed a reply.
On April 3,
2025, Cross-Defendants Joseph L. Lau and Mimi Lau filed an answer to the
cross-complaint.
Legal Standard
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(a).) The court may also strike 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. (Id., § 436(b).) The
grounds for a motion to strike are that the pleading has irrelevant, false or
improper matter, or has not been drawn or filed in conformity with laws. (Id.,
§ 436.) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the
pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Id., § 437.) “When the defect
which justifies striking a complaint is capable of cure, the court should allow
leave to amend.” (Vaccaro v. Kaiman (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 761,
768.)
Discussion
Moving
Defendants seek to strike the following portions of Plaintiffs’ complaint
regarding punitive damages:
1.
Paragraph
34, page 10: "Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages in
an amount to be proven at trial.";
2.
Paragraph
79, page 16: "Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages in
an amount to be proven at trial."; and
3. Prayer for relief, paragraph 8:
"For exemplary and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at
trial[.]”
Moving Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’
allegations of Defendants’ conduct do not rise to the level required for
punitive damages. (Motion, at p. 5.) Moving Defendants also argue that there is
no factual particularity as to the allegations against individual Defendants.
In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that Plaintiffs
have properly pled facts constituting fraud, malice or oppression from
Defendants. (Opp., at pp. 3-4.)
Punitive damages are appropriate when
a defendant acted with malice, oppression, or fraud. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd.
(a).) “Malice” is defined as conduct intended to cause injury to a person or
despicable conduct carried on with a willful and conscious disregard for the
rights or safety of others. (Turman v. Turning Point of Cent. Cal., Inc.
(2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63.) “Oppression” means despicable conduct
subjecting a person to cruel and unjust hardship, in conscious disregard of the
person’s rights. (Ibid.) “Fraud” is an intentional misrepresentation,
deceit, or concealment of a material fact known by defendant, with intent to
deprive a person of property, rights or otherwise cause injury. (Ibid.)
California
courts have approved punitive damages where a landlord persistently fails to
address substandard conditions. (Penner v. Falk (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d
858, 867.) Reading the complaint as a whole, the court finds that Plaintiffs
have adequately alleged malice and oppression. Plaintiffs allege multiple
uninhabitable, substandard housing conditions at the Subject Property.
(Complaint, ¶¶ 3, 4, 21, 23-25.) Plaintiffs also allege that despite their
complaints, Defendants have responded inconsistently and ineffectively. (Id.,
¶ 26.) Plaintiffs also contend that despite many notices and orders to comply
from government entities, Defendants have failed to correct the deficiencies
and have retaliated against Plaintiffs. (Id., ¶ 28.) As such, Plaintiffs
have alleged a pattern of Defendants’ conscious failure to repair these
defects. These facts, taken together, could allow a reasonable jury to make a
finding of malice or oppression.
Nevertheless, the complaint fails to adhere to section 3294’s requirement that each
defendant be liable as Plaintiffs improperly lump these allegations against
all Defendants. Moreover, the opposition does not address this point. While
Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged facts warranting punitive damages, Plaintiffs
allegations are insufficient to determine which Defendants committed the
various alleged malicious acts.
The court therefore grants the motion to
strike with leave to amend.
Conclusion
Defendants Joseph L. Lau and Mimi Lau’s Motion to Strike portions of
Plaintiffs’ complaint is GRANTED with leave to amend within 20 days.