Judge: Robert S. Draper, Case: 21STCV40074, Date: 2022-10-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV40074    Hearing Date: October 6, 2022    Dept: 78

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

Defendants’ Motion to Strike is DENIED. Defendants have thirty days to answer.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND   

This is an action for residential uninhabitability. The Complaint alleges as follows.

Plaintiff Jamon Brown (“Plaintiff”) rented residential property located at 1025 North Serrano Avenue, Los Angeles, CA (the “Subject Property”). (Compl. ¶ 1.) Defendants San Marino Street Properties (“San Marino”) and Eleanor Avenue Properties LLC (“Eleanor Avenue” and together with San Marino “Defendants”) were the managers, owners, or agents of the Subject Property. (Compl. ¶ 3.)

The Subject Property suffered from numerous deficiencies rendering Plaintiff’s home uninhabitable. (Compl. ¶ 18.) These deficiencies include cockroach infestation, mold contaminations, dysfunctional plumbing systems, inoperable electrical outlets, lack of HVAC system, inadequate ventilation, accumulations of filth, and deficient security. (Ibid.) Despite Plaintiff’s repeated complaints, Defendants failed to remedy these issues. (Compl. ¶ 27.)

Additionally, Defendants falsely represented to Plaintiff that they had sent pest control to his unit on several occasions but did not do so. (Compl. ¶ 37.) When Plaintiff asked for further information regarding the alleged visit, Defendants did not provide such information. (Ibid.) 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On November 1, 2021, Plaintiff filed the Complaint asserting ten causes of action:

1.    Violation of California Civil Code § 1942.4;

2.    Tortious Breach of the Warranty of Habitability;

3.    Private Nuisance;

4.    Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq.;

5.    Negligence;

6.    Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment;

7.    Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress;

8.    California Fair employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov. C. § 12955, et seq.

9.    Violation of Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance; and

10.                   Fraud and Deceit

On June 24, 2022, Defendants filed the instant Motion to Strike Portions of the Complaint.

On September 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Opposition.

On September 29, 2022, Defendants filed a Reply.

DISCUSSION 

                         I.          MOTION TO STRIKE

Defendants move to strike several portions of the Complaint.

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.) 

Here, Defendants move to strike Plaintiff’s (1) Seventh Cause of Action for Intentional infliction of Emotional Distress, Eighth Cause of Action for Violations of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and Tenth Cause of Action for Fraud and Deceit; (2) Prayer for and allegations as to punitive damages; (3) references to the singular Plaintiff as “Plaintiffs,” “Tenants,” “Co-Tenants,” or any other reference to Plaintiff in the plural.

A.  Seventh, Eighth, and Tenth Causes of Action

First, Defendants move to strike the Seventh, Eighth, and Tenth Causes of Action from the Complaint.

Defendants argue that Plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action on these grounds.

In Opposition, Plaintiff argues that a Motion to Strike is the improper procedure by which to challenge the sufficiency of the pleadings. Plaintiff argues that these arguments are properly raised on Demurrer.

Plaintiff’s argument is well-taken. A pleading challenge to an entire cause of action is by demurrer rather than a motion to strike under¿CCP § 436: “While under section 436, a court at any time may, in its discretion, strike portions of a complaint that are irrelevant, improper, or not drawn in conformity with the law, matter that is essential to a cause of action should not be struck and it is error to do so.  [Citation.] Where a whole cause of action is the proper subject of a pleading challenge, the court should sustain a demurrer to the cause of action rather than grant a motion to strike. [Citation.]” (Quiroz v. Seventh Ave. Center (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1256, 1281.)

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Strike is DENIED on these grounds.

B.  Punitive Damages

Next, Defendants move to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for, and allegations pertaining to, punitive damages.

Civil Code §3294(a) authorizes the recovery of punitive damages where the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, express or implied.

Malice means 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. (Civil Code § 3294(c)(1).) Oppression is despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights. (Civil Code § 3294(c)(2).) Fraud means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the party of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury. (Civil Code § 3294(c)(3).)¿ 

In other words, to succeed on a motion to strike punitive damages allegations, it must be said as a matter of law that the alleged behavior was not so vile, base, or contemptible that it would not be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people. (Angie M. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1228 – 1229.) “In order to survive a motion to strike an allegation of punitive damages, the ultimate facts showing an entitlement to such relief must be pled by a plaintiff.” (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal. App. 4th 1253, 1255.) Conclusory allegations, devoid of any factual assertions, are insufficient to support a conclusion that parties acted with oppression, fraud or malice. (Smith v. Sup. Ct. (1992) 10 Cal. App. 4th 1033, 1042.)

Here, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not alleged specific facts demonstrating Defendants acted fraudulently, oppressively, or maliciously. Defendants accurately note that the Complaint contains conclusory allegations merely stating that Defendants acted fraudulently, oppressively, or maliciously.

However, these conclusory statements are not the only allegations supporting punitive damages. The Complaint also alleges that Plaintiff “notified the Defendants and their agents about the habitability violations, but Defendants have failed to correct the habitability concerns.” (Compl. ¶ 30.)

Under California law, a landlord’s failure to repair can support a claim for punitive damages. (Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 903, 920.) In Stoiber, the Court found that the tenant had pled sufficient facts to support her prayer for exemplary damages because she alleged that the landlord had actual knowledge of defective conditions in the premises, including leaking sewage, deteriorated flooring, falling ceiling, leaking roof, broken windows, and other unsafe and dangerous conditions, and that the landlord failed to repair them. 

Additionally, the Complaint alleges that Defendants’ conduct was fraudulent as “Defendants falsely represented to Plaintiffs that they sent pest control to his unit several times. . . Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that no spray ever took place. . . Plaintiff asked Defendants several times for the dates in which the pest control occurred, Defendants refused to provide them.”

This allegation, together with Plaintiff’s Fraud Cause of Action, are sufficient to allege fraudulent conduct supporting a prayer for punitive damages.

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Prayer for Punitive Damages from the Complaint is DENIED.

C.  Plural References to Plaintiff

Finally, Defendants move to strike all references to Plaintiff in the plural.

As Defendants note, the Complaint repeatedly refers to Plaintiff as “Plaintiffs,” “Tenants,” and in other plural signifiers. Defendants move the Court to strike these references from the Complaint as there is only one Plaintiff.

While Defendants are correct that there is only one Plaintiff, and therefore the Complaint should logically refer to Defendant in the singular, Plaintiff’s error does not make the Complaint substantially more difficult to understand. Where there is only one Plaintiff, Defendants can easily infer that the use of the term “Plaintiffs” refers to this singular Plaintiff.

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Strike is DENIED on this ground.

DATED: October 6, 2022 

____________________________

Hon. Robert S. Draper 

Judge of the Superior Court