Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 23STCV02402, Date: 2023-10-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV02402    Hearing Date: October 20, 2023    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Defendant Delaina Dutton     

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff John Damiani

(1)   Demurrer to Complaint

(2)   Motion to Strike Portions of Complaint

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with the demurrer and motion to strike.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff John Damiani (“Plaintiff”) filed this breach of warranty of habitability action on February 3, 2023, against defendants HLS, LLC, Sunset Landmark Investments, LLC, Stephen Saeed Nourmand, and Delaina Dutton.  Plaintiff alleges 10 causes of action for (1) breach of the implied warranty of habitability; (2) breach of implied covenant of quiet enjoyment and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) breach of lease extension agreement; (4) tortious interference with contract and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; (5) invasion of privacy and trespass; (6) retaliatory termination; (7) fraud in the inducement; (8) intentional inflection of emotional distress; (9) constructive eviction; and (10) negligence.

Defendant Delaina Dutton (“Defendant”) now moves the court for an order (1) sustaining her demurrer to the fourth, fifth, and seventh through 10th causes of action, and (2) striking from the Complaint Plaintiff’s prayers for punitive damages and attorney’s fees.

DEMURRER

The court sustains Defendant’s demurrer to the fourth cause of action for tortious interference with contract and intentional interreference with prospective economic advantage because it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action since (1) Defendant is alleged to be the assistant manager of defendant Sunset Landmark Investments, LLC (“Sunset”), which is the authorized managing and leasing agent of defendant HLS, LLC (“HLS”), with which Plaintiff entered into the subject lease agreement, (2) Defendant is alleged to have interfered with the lease agreement by serving the Sixty-Day Notice, but (3) Defendant, working as an agent for Sunset and, by extension, HLS, cannot be held to have interfered with the performance of their principal’s contracts (i.e., HLS) or with the prospective economic advantage between Plaintiff and their principal.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Compl., ¶¶ 15, 13, 10 ,188, 190; Compl., Ex. A [Rental Agreement between Plaintiff and HLS]; PM Group, Inc. v. Stewart (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 55, 65 [“The tort of intentional interference with contractual relations is committed only by ‘strangers—interlopers who have no legitimate interest in the scope or course of the contract’s performance’”]; Woods v. Fox Broadcasting Sub, Inc. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 344, 350.)

The court sustains Defendant’s demurrer to the fifth cause of action for invasion of privacy and trespass because it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action since (1) as to the claim for invasion of privacy, Plaintiff has not alleged facts establishing that Defendant caused an intrusion “in a manner highly offensive to a reasonable person[,]” and (2) as to the claim for trespass, Plaintiff has not alleged facts establishing that Defendant caused an intrusion into the home in excess of Plaintiff’s permission.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Compl., ¶ 196; Mezger v. Bick (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 76, 86-87 [elements of cause of action for invasion of privacy]; Ralphs Grocery Co. v. Victory Consultants, Inc. (2017) 17 Cal.App.th 245, 262 [elements of cause of action for trespass].)

The court sustains Defendant’s demurrer to the seventh cause of action for fraud in the inducement because it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action since Plaintiff has not alleged, with the particularity required by California law, facts establishing that Defendant made misrepresentations to Plaintiff, knowing they were false, with the intent to induce reliance thereon, and the resulting harm to Plaintiff.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Lauckhart v. El Macero Homeowners Assn. (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 889, 903 [“Fraud must be pleaded with particularity.  General and conclusory allegations are inadequate”]; Hinesley v. Oakshade Town Center (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 289, 294-295 [elements of cause of action for fraud in the inducement].)

The court sustains Defendant’s demurrer to the eighth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress because it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action since Plaintiff has not alleged facts establishing that Defendant’s conduct was “so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community” and therefore has not alleged the element of extreme and outrageous conduct.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1050-1051.)

The court sustains Defendant’s demurrer to the ninth cause of action for constructive eviction because it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action since (1) “constructive eviction occurs when the acts or omissions . . . of a landlord, or any disturbance or interference with the tenant’s possession by the landlord,” renders the premises unfit or deprives the tenant of enjoyment or use of the premises, but (2) Defendant is not alleged to be the landlord, and instead, is alleged to be the assistant manager for Sunset, the authorized managing and leasing agent for landlord HLS, and therefore has not alleged that Defendant is personally liable for the alleged constructive eviction of Plaintiff.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 902, 925-926 [emphasis added]; Compl., ¶¶ 15, 13; Compl., Ex. A [lease between Plaintiff as “Tenant” and HLS as “Landlord”].)  

The court sustains Defendant’s demurrer to the 10th cause of action for negligence because it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action since Plaintiff has not alleged facts establishing that Defendant, in her individual capacity, owed a duty of care to Plaintiff.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Peredia v. HR Mobile Services, Inc. (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 680, 687.) 

MOTION TO STRIKE

Defendant moves the court for an order striking from the Complaint (1) the prayer for attorney’s fees and related requests, and (2) the prayer for punitive damages and related allegations.

The court denies Defendant’s motion to strike the prayers for punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and related allegations because the court has sustained the demurrer as to each cause of action alleged against Defendant, and therefore the requests for relief as to Defendant are moot. 

ORDER

            The court sustains defendant Delaina Dutton’s demurrer to plaintiff John Damiani’s fourth, fifth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth causes of action.

            The court denies as moot defendant Delaina Dutton’s motion to strike.

            The court grants plaintiff John Damiani 20 days leave to file a First Amended Complaint that addresses the deficiencies with the fourth, fifth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth causes of action set forth above.

The court orders defendant Delaina Dutton to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  October 20, 2023

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court