Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 24STCV08795, Date: 2024-11-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV08795    Hearing Date: November 5, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTIES:              Defendants Syliva and Harry Naman Heritage Properties, LLC, Naman Family Investments, LP, Chad Naman, as trustee of the Chad Naman 2021 Trust, Kimberly Naman, as trustee of the Kimberly Naman 2021 Trust     

RESPONDING PARTIES:     Plaintiffs Julieann Berg and Terri James

(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

Plaintiffs Julieann Berg (“Berg”) and Terri James (“James”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this breach of warranty of habitability action on April 8, 2024 against defendants Syliva and Harry Naman Heritage Properties, LLC, Naman Family Investments, LP, Chad Naman, as trustee of the Chad Naman 2021 Trust, Kimberly Naman, as trustee of the Kimberly Naman 2021 Trust, and Amy Ruggles, as trustee of the Jennifer Naman 2021 Trust.[1] 

Defendants Syliva and Harry Naman Heritage Properties, LLC, Naman Family Investments, LP, Chad Naman, as trustee of the Chad Naman 2021 Trust, Kimberly Naman, as trustee of the Kimberly Naman 2021 Trust (“Defendants”) now move the court for an order     (1) sustaining their demurrer to Plaintiff’s fifth, sixth, and 12th causes of action, and (2) striking from Plaintiffs’ Complaint the requests for punitive damages and supporting allegations.

DEMURRER

The court overrules Defendants’ demurrer to plaintiff James’s fifth cause of action for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment because it states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action since plaintiff James (1) is not required to allege that she was actually or constructively evicted to maintain this cause of action, and (2) has alleged that Defendants interfered with her right to quiet enjoyment of the property (Compl., ¶ 107).  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Ginsberg v. Gamson (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 873, 898 [“breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment can be understood as a title encompassing claims for wrongful eviction, and also claims in which the tenant’s use of the premises is disturbed, but the tenant remains in possession”] [emphasis added]; Erlach v. Sierra Asset Servicing, LLC (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1300 [“In recent years, the covenant of quiet enjoyment has been expanded, and in this state, for example, it insulates the tenant against any act or omission on the part of the landlord, or anyone claiming under him, which interferes with a tenant’s right to use and enjoy the premises for the purposes contemplated by the tenancy”] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 261,392 [“some authorities recognize that a tenant may sue for breach of the covenant while remaining in possession”].)

The court overrules Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiff’s sixth cause of action for nuisance because (1) it states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action (Compl., ¶¶ 25, 29, 114), and (2) the court finds that it is not duplicative of the negligence cause of action.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Lynch v. Peter & Associates, Engineers, Geologists, Surveyors, Inc. (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 1181, 1198 [“Even if the nuisance claim relies on the same facts about lack of due care supporting the negligence claim, it does not mean the claims are identical or duplicative . . . .  Also, assessing a nuisance claim in this manner ignores the fact that a duty between defendant and plaintiff need not exist to maintain a nuisance claim”].)

            The court overrules Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiffs’ 12th cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress because it states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action since Plaintiffs have alleged facts establishing that (1) Defendants’ conduct, in failing to address the mold growing in Plaintiffs’ units, causing Plaintiffs to suffer health and respiratory issues (Compl., ¶¶ 45, 68, 70), despite their knowledge and Plaintiffs’ complaints about the condition of their units (Compl., ¶¶ 38-40, 43, 44-48, 51, 55, 168), was “so extreme as to exceed all bounds of decency in a civilized community[,]” and (2) Plaintiffs suffered severe emotional distress (Compl., ¶ 173).  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Berry v. Frazier (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 1258, 1273 [elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress].)

MOTION TO STRIKE

Defendants move the court for an order striking (1) Plaintiffs’ requests for punitive damages (Compl., ¶¶ 72, 74, 84, 103, 111, 118, 140, 174; Compl., Prayer, ¶ 5), and (2) the supporting allegations (Compl., ¶¶ 66, 73, and pp. 15:17-23 (erroneously labeled ¶ 53), 16:2-3 (erroneously labeled ¶ 55)).

The court grants Defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff James’s request for punitive damages, as alleged in support of the fifth cause of action for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment only (Compl., ¶ 111), because that cause of action, as alleged by plaintiff James, sounds in contract and therefore cannot support a request for punitive damages.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 436; Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a); Ginsberg, supra, 205 Cal.App.4th at pp. 901 [“These cases do not support the proposition that a tort claim arises out of the breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, when there has been no eviction and the tenant remains in possession of the premises”], 902 [“when the landlord has breached the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment, but the tenant remains in possession of the premises, the tenant’s remedy is to ‘sue for breach of contract damages’”]; Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood Apartments (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1030-1031 [characterizing breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment to be a cause of action “sounding in contract”].)

The court denies Defendants’ motion to strike the remaining allegations and requests for punitive damages because Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts establishing that (1) Defendants were guilty of malice or oppression based on the allegations that Defendants failed to remediate the mold that was visible in Plaintiffs’ units throughout their tenancies, including after Plaintiffs advised Defendants’ agent, Ora Maschiach, of the adverse physical symptoms that they suffered as a result thereof (Compl., ¶¶ 38, 40, 42-45, 50), and (2) Defendants’ authorization, ratification, or act of oppression and malice was on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent of Defendants (Compl., pp. 15:16-16:10.)  (Code Civ. Proc., § 436; Civ. Code, § 3294, subds. (a), (b); King v. U.S. Bank National Association (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 675, 711 [discussing malice and despicable conduct within the meaning of Civil Code section 3294].)

The burden is on the plaintiff “to articulate how it could amend its pleading to render it sufficient.”¿ (Palm Springs Villas II Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Parth (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 268, 290.)¿ To satisfy that burden, a plaintiff “must show in what manner he can amend his complaint and how that amendment will change the legal effect of his pleading.”¿ (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.)  The court finds that plaintiff James has not met her burden to articulate how she can amend her request for punitive damages, made in connection with the fifth cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment, to render it sufficient against Defendants.  The court therefore grants Defendants’ motion to strike that request (Compl., ¶ 111) without leave to amend.

ORDER

            The court overrules defendants Syliva and Harry Naman Heritage Properties, LLC, Naman Family Investments, LP, Chad Naman, as trustee of the Chad Naman 2021 Trust, Kimberly Naman, as trustee of the Kimberly Naman 2021 Trust’s demurrer to plaintiffs Julieann Berg and Terri James’s Complaint.

            The court grants defendants Syliva and Harry Naman Heritage Properties, LLC, Naman Family Investments, LP, Chad Naman, as trustee of the Chad Naman 2021 Trust, Kimberly Naman, as trustee of the Kimberly Naman 2021 Trust’s motion to strike the request for punitive damages as alleged by plaintiff Terri James in support of the fifth cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment, as set forth in paragraph 111 of the Complaint.

            The court denies all other relief requested in defendants Syliva and Harry Naman Heritage Properties, LLC, Naman Family Investments, LP, Chad Naman, as trustee of the Chad Naman 2021 Trust, Kimberly Naman, as trustee of the Kimberly Naman 2021 Trust’s motion to strike.

            The court orders defendants Syliva and Harry Naman Heritage Properties, LLC, Naman Family Investments, LP, Chad Naman, as trustee of the Chad Naman 2021 Trust, Kimberly Naman, as trustee of the Kimberly Naman 2021 Trust to file an answer to plaintiffs Julieann Berg and Terri James’s Complaint no later than 10 days from the date of this order.

            The court orders plaintiffs Julieann Berg and Terri James to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  November 5, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court