Gina William, et al. v. Single Room Occupancy Housing Corporation

MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

 

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Single Room Occupancy Housing Corporation

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Gina Williams

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiffs are current or former tenants of the Golden West Apartments, located at 417 E. 5th Street, Los Angeles, CA.  Defendant Single Room Occupancy Housing Corporation (“SRO”) is a non-profit that owns and/or operates the Apartments.  Plaintiffs allege that Defendant has neglected to maintain the property, misrepresented the conditions of the property to renters, and exposed Plaintiffs to uninhabitable conditions including extreme rodent and insect infestation, non-functioning toilets, contaminated water, heating and electrical problems, leaks/water damage, and toxic mold, among other things. 

Defendant SRO now moves for summary adjudication of Plaintiffs’ request for punitive damages. Plaintiff opposed.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Adjudication of Punitive Damages is DENIED.

Plaintiff to give notice, unless waived.

DISCUSSION:

Motion for Summary Adjudication

I. Judicial Notice

Pursuant to Defendant’s request, this court takes judicial notice of Defendant’s Exhibits D, E, and F.

II. Evidentiary Objections

Pursuant to CCP § 437c(q), the Court only rules upon objections asserted against evidence which the Court deems to be material to the disposition of this motion, as follows:

Defendant’s unnumbered objections to the Declaration of Anita Nelson are OVERRULED.

III. Legal Standard

The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party cannot show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843. In analyzing motions for summary judgment, courts must apply a three-step analysis: “(1) identify the issues framed by the pleadings; (2) determine whether the moving party has negated the opponent's claims; and (3) determine whether the opposition has demonstrated the existence of a triable, material factual issue.” Hinesley v. Oakshade Town Center (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 289, 294.  Thus, summary judgment is granted when, after the Court’s consideration of the evidence set forth in the papers and all reasonable inferences accordingly, no triable issues of fact exist and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(c); Villa v. McFarren (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 733, 741. 

As to each claim as framed by the Complaint, the defendant moving for summary judgment must satisfy the initial burden of proof by presenting facts to negate an essential element, or to establish a defense. Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1520. Courts “liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.” Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc.¿(2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389. A motion for summary judgment must be denied where the moving party's evidence does not prove all material facts, even in the absence of any opposition Leyva v. Sup. Ct. (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 462, 475) or where the opposition is weak.  Salesguevara v. Wyeth Labs., Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 379, 384, 387.   

A defendant has met its burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if it demonstrates the absence of any single essential element of plaintiff’s case or a complete defense to plaintiff’s action.  Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(o)(2); Bacon v. Southern Cal. Edison Co. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 854, 858.  Once the defendant moving party has met the burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show via specific facts that a triable issue of material facts exists as to a cause of action or a defense thereto.  § 437c(o)(2). 

Where a plaintiff cannot establish an essential element of a cause of action, or where a complete defense is shown, a court must grant a motion for summary adjudication.  Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(o)(1)-(2).  A defendant meets its burden by showing that “one or more elements of a cause of action . . . cannot be established.”  Id.; Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 853. When a defendant moves for summary judgment or adjudication on the basis of an affirmative defense, the defendant has the burden of establishing the undisputed facts support each element of the affirmative defense.  Consumer Cause, Inc. v. SmileCare (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 454, 467-68.

IV. Analysis

Defendant Single Room Occupancy Housing Corporation moves for summary adjudication of the prayer for punitive damages.  

Code of Civil Procedure Section 437c, subdivision (f)(1) provides that “[a] party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one or more issues of duty, if the party contends that the cause of action has no merit, that there is no affirmative defense to the cause of action, that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to any cause of action, that there is no merit to a claim for damages, as specified in Section 3294 of the Civil Code, or that one or more defendants either owed or did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or plaintiffs. A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” (Emphasis added.)  

Punitive damages may be recovered under section 3294 “where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.” (§ 3294, subd. (a).) “Malice” is defined by statute as “conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct  which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.” (Id. § 3294(c)(1)). “Oppression” is defined as “despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.” (Id. § 3294(c)(2)). “Fraud” is defined as “intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.” (Id. § 3294(c)(3)).

Civil Code section 3294, subdivision (b), provides that a corporate employer is not liable for punitive damages based upon the acts of its employees unless the acts were committed, authorized, or ratified by a corporate officer, director, or managing agent.  (Powerhouse Motorsports Grp., Inc. v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A. (2013) 221 Cal. App. 4th 867, 885.) “An award of punitive damages…must rest on the malice of the corporation's employees. [¶] But the law does not impute every employee's malice to the corporation.” (Cruz v. HomeBase (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 160, 167.) “Instead, the oppression, fraud, or malice must be perpetrated, authorized, or knowingly ratified by an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation. (Wilson v. S. California Edison Co. (2015) 234 Cal. App. 4th 123, 164 [citing Civ. Code § 3294, subd. (b)].) The term “managing agent” includes “only those corporate employees who exercise substantial independent authority and judgment in their corporate decisionmaking so that their decisions ultimately determine corporate policy.” (Id.) Generally, “corporate policy” refers to “formal policies that affect a substantial portion of the company and that are of the type likely to come to the attention of corporate leadership.” (CRST, Inc. v. Superior Ct. (2017) 11 Cal. App. 5th 1255, 1273.)

When addressing a motion for summary adjudication of punitive damages, the court must “view the evidence presented through the prism of the substantive clear and convincing evidentiary burden.”  (Butte Fire Cases (2018) 24 Cal. App. 5th 1150, 1158; Basich v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1112, 1121 [“on a motion for summary adjudication with respect to a punitive damages claim, the higher evidentiary standard applies. If the plaintiff is going to prevail on a punitive damages claim, he or she can only do so by establishing malice, oppression or fraud by clear and convincing evidence”].) “Under the clear and convincing standard, the evidence must be so clear as to leave no substantial doubt and sufficiently strong to command the unhesitating assent of every reasonable mind.”  (Butte, supra, 24 Cal.App. 5th at 1158.) Although the clear and convincing evidentiary standard is a stringent one, “it does not impose on a plaintiff the obligation to ‘prove’ a case for punitive damages at summary judgment [or summary adjudication].” (Id.)  Even so, “where the plaintiff’s ultimate burden of proof will be by clear and convincing evidence, the higher standard of proof must be taken into account in ruling on a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, since if a plaintiff is to prevail on a claim for punitive damages, it will be necessary that the evidence presented meet the higher evidentiary standard.”  (Id. at 1159.)

As framed by the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs are tenants of a property known as Golden West, a Permanent Supportive Housing for “individuals living with mental health and substance abuse disorders.” (FAC ¶ 7.) The property is owned or operated by Defendant Single Room Occupancy Housing Corporation. 

Plaintiffs allege the premises “has been subject to an extreme rodent infestation and insect, unsanitary conditions, plumbing and electrical problems, leaks/water damage and mold in the property,” among other issues. (Id. ¶ 31.) Plaintiffs allege they “timely informed and requested” that Defendant remedy these issues, but “building management never took any steps to correct the issues.” (Id. ¶ 32.) Plaintiffs allege that various “managing agents” on the property were aware of the defects but failed to remedy them. (Id. ¶¶ 42-48.) Plaintiffs allege that “Defendants’ conduct under these circumstances is despicable and warrants the imposition of punitive damages.” (Id. ¶ 48.)

“A defendant moving for summary judgment has the initial burden of showing, with respect to each cause of action set forth in the complaint, the cause of action is without merit. A defendant meets that burden by showing one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established, or there is a complete defense thereto.” (Leyva v. Garcia (2018) 20 Cal. App. 5th 1095, 1101.) “A prima facie showing is one that is sufficient to support the position of the party in question. [Citation.] No more is called for.” (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 851 [emphasis added].)

To meet its initial burden on summary judgment, a moving defendant may “present evidence that the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence—as through admissions by the plaintiff following extensive discovery to the effect that he has discovered nothing.” (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 854.) “A defendant can satisfy its initial burden to show an absence of evidence through ‘admissions by the plaintiff following extensive discovery to the effect that he has discovered nothing’ or through discovery responses that are factually devoid.” (Chavez v. Glock, Inc. (2012) 207 Cal. App. 4th 1283, 1302 [citing Union Bank v. Superior Court (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 573, 590.)  A Defendant, however, must still support the motion with evidence including “affidavits, declarations, admissions, answers to interrogatories, depositions, and matters of which judicial notice” must or may “be taken.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (b).) 

For its burden, Defendant presents the following: Plaintiff Williams testified at deposition that defective/uninhabitable conditions existed at the property, and that little or nothing was done to remedy them. (SUMF 6-9.) Plaintiff detailed how on-site employees ignored her concerns, or took actions that Plaintiff believed to be inappropriate or rude. Defendant argues that Plaintiff, however, offered no testimony or evidence that any SRO employee acted with malice, oppression, or fraud.  

Considering this evidence, Defendant has met its initial burden to demonstrate the lack of clear and convincing evidence that any managing agent acted with malice, oppression, or fraud. This switches the burden to Plaintiff to establish a triable issue of material fact. 

In opposition, Plaintiff reiterates that she “constantly” complained of the uninhabitable conditions to on-site managers, managing agents Mark Saenz and Martha Acosta, and even at the SRO headquarters. (SSDMF 8.) The issues included a lack of functioning air conditioning, sink and sink and shower back-up, among other things. (SSUMF 9; SSAMF 36, 39, 40, 41.) In addition, Plaintiff presents evidence she and other women were “terrorized” by “male sexual predators” who obtained unauthorized access to the women’s bathroom. (SSAMF 41.) Despite frequent complaints and threats to Plaintiff’s safety, no action was taken to remedy these issues. 

First, whether the conduct at issue was done by a “managing agent” here presents a question of fact. (See Davis v. Kiewit Pac. Co. (2013) 220 Cal. App. 4th 358, 366 [“The scope of a corporate employee's discretion and authority under our [managing agent] test is therefore a question of fact for decision on a case-by-case basis.” [Citation.] “If there exists a triable issue of fact regarding whether a corporate employee is a managing agent under the White test, that factual question must be determined by the trier of fact and not the court on a motion for summary adjudication.”].)

Second, considering the evidence through the lens of the applicable “clear and convincing evidence” standard, Plaintiff has established a triable issue by which a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that Defendant or a managing agent acted with malice, oppression, or fraud in the maintenance of the premises. (See Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton (2002) 96 Cal. App. 4th 1017, 1049 [“although the ‘clear and convincing’ evidentiary standard is a stringent one, it does not impose on a plaintiff the obligation to ‘prove’ a case for punitive damages at summary judgment”].) 

In so concluding, this court is mindful of its duty to “liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.” (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc.¿(2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.)

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Adjudication of Punitive Damages is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:   June 13, 2024 ___________________________________