Judge: Robert S. Draper, Case: 22STCV03370, Date: 2022-10-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV03370    Hearing Date: October 27, 2022    Dept: 78

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

Defendants Holt Avenue Housing Partners, LP and Holt Avenue Development Co., LLC’s Demurrer to the Sixth Cause of Action is SUSTAINED.

Defendants Holt Avenue Housing Partners, LP and Holt Avenue Development Co., LLC’s Demurrer to the Tenth Cause of Action is OVERRULED.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND   

This is an action for uninhabitable conditions in a residential property. The Complaint alleges as follows.

Plaintiff Kandee Gilbert Lewis (“Plaintiff”) lives in a residential unit (the “Subject Property”) managed or maintained by Defendants Holt Avenue Housing Partners, LLC, Holt Avenue Development Co., LLC, and Shield of Faith Economic Development Corporation (together “Defendants”). (Compl. ¶¶ 1-2.) Beginning in February 2020, Plaintiff became aware of toxic mold in the Subject Property. (Compl. ¶ 7.) Since then, Plaintiff has repeatedly informed Defendants of the uninhabitable conditions in the Subject Property. (Compl. ¶ 8.) Defendants not only failed to remedy the issues, but actively worked to conceal the existence of the dangerous conditions. (Compl. ¶ 9.) As a result, Plaintiff has suffered numerous health conditions. (Compl. ¶¶ 12(a-i).)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On January 26, 2022, Plaintiff filed the Complaint asserting ten causes of action:

1.    Breach of Warranty of Habitability (Civil Code § 1941.1);

2.    Breach of Warranty of Habitability (Health & Safety Code § 17290.3)

3.    Breach of Warranty of Habitability (Civil Code § 1942.4);

4.    Negligence – Premises Liability;

5.    Nuisance;

6.    Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress;

7.    Breach of Contract;

8.    Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment;

9.    Fraud/Deceit/Intentional Misrepresentation of Fact; and

10. Housing Discrimination in Violation of Government Code § 12921.  

On June 13, 2022, Defendants Holt Avenue Housing Partners, L.P. and Holt Avenue Development Co., LLC (together “Holt”) filed a Demurrer to the Complaint with a Motion to Strike.

On August 10, 2022, this Court sustained Holt’s Demurrer as to the Sixth and Tenth Causes of Action and granted Plaintiff twenty days leave to amend. Additionally, the Court denied Holt’s Motion to Strike.

On August 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint asserting the same ten causes of action.

On September 29, 2022, Holt filed the instant Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint.

On October 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Opposition.

On October 20, 2022, Holt filed a Reply.  

DISCUSSION 

                          I.          DEMURRER

Holt Demurs to the Sixth and Tenth Causes of Action in the First Amended Complaint pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(e). These are the same causes of action for which the Court previously sustained Holt’s Demurrer to the Complaint.

A demurrer should be sustained only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. (Code Civ. Pro., §§ 430.30, et seq.) As is relevant here, a court should sustain a demurrer if a complaint does not allege facts that are legally sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (See id. § 430.10, subd. (e).) As the Supreme Court held in Blank v. Kirwan (1985) Cal.3d 311: “We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. . . . Further, we give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context.” (Id. at p. 318; see also Hahn. v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747 [“A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. [Citation.]”)  

“In determining whether the complaint is sufficient as against the demurrer … if on consideration of all the facts stated it appears the plaintiff is entitled to any relief at the hands of the court against the defendants the complaint will be held good although the facts may not be clearly stated.”  (Gressley v. Williams (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 636, 639.) 

A demurrer should not be sustained without leave to amend if the complaint, liberally construed, can state a cause of action under any theory or if there is a reasonable possibility the defect can be cured by amendment. (Schifando v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 1081.) The demurrer also may be sustained without leave to amend where the nature of the defects and previous unsuccessful attempts to plead render it probable plaintiff cannot state a cause of action. (Krawitz v. Rusch (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 957, 967.) 

A.   Sixth Cause of Action – Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Holt demurs to the Sixth Cause of Action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”).

The elements of an intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action are: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant; (2) intention to cause or reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress; (3) severe emotional suffering; and (4) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress. (See Moncada v. West Coast Quartz Corp. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 768, 780; Wilson v. Hynek (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 999, 1009.) To satisfy the element of extreme and outrageous conduct, defendant’s conduct “‘must be so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized society.’” (Moncada, supra, 221 Cal.App.4th at 780 (quoting Trerice v. Blue Cross of California (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 878, 883).)  

“Behavior may be considered outrageous if a defendant (1) abuses a relation or position which gives him power to damage the plaintiff’s interest; (2) knows the plaintiff is susceptible to injuries through mental distress; or (3) acts intentionally or unreasonably with the recognition that the acts are likely to result in illness through mental distress.” (McDaniel v. Gile (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 363, 372.) 

Here, Holt argues that the only facts Plaintiff alleges to support her claim for IIED pertain to Defendants’ failure or refusal to repair the property, and that this alone cannot constitute extreme and outrageous conduct. This is the same basis on which the Court sustained Holt’s previous Demurrer.

In sustaining that Demurrer, the Court found that the entirety of Plaintiff’s allegations supporting her Sixth Cause of Action were based on Holt’s failure or refusal to remedy the habitability deficiencies after Holt was given notice of the issues. The Court noted that “[i]naction, absent an intent to injure, is insufficient to constitute extreme and outrageous behavior for intentional infliction of emotional distress liability.” (Davidson v. City of Westminster (1982) 32 Cal.3d 197, 210.)

In the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff adds allegations that Holt was aware of the sewage and pest infestation issues, as Holt had similar issues in their other residential properties. (FAC. ¶¶ 131-32.) Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that “Defendants actively took steps to conceal from Plaintiff that the subject property was contaminated with harmful toxic mold for the express purpose of preventing Plaintiff from learning of the harmful conditions, AND to deceive Plaintiff into staying as a tenant on the subject premises and continuing to pay rent to Defendants.” (FAC ¶ 133.)

The Court finds that the deficiencies present in the Complaint remain in the Sixth Amended Complaint. Plaintiff continues to allege that Holt failed to properly maintain her unit and deceived her about the condition of her apartment so as to continue receiving her rent payments. This constitutes inaction intended to benefit Holt’s profits, not extreme and outrageous effort intended to injure Plaintiff.

Accordingly, Holt’s Demurrer to the Sixth Cause of Action is SUSTAINED. The Court will consider Plaintiff’s argument as to whether leave to amend should be granted at hearing.

B.   Tenth Cause of Action – Housing Discrimination in Violation of Government Code § 12921 et seq.

Next, Holt demurs to Plaintiff’s Tenth Cause of Action for Housing Discrimination in Violation of Government Code § 12921, the Fair Employment and Housing Act.

Section 12921 states:

The opportunity to seek, obtain, and hold housing without discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, genetic information, or any other basis prohibited by Section 51 of the Civil Code is hereby recognized as and declared to be a civil right.

Here, Holt argues that Holt has not prevented Plaintiff from seeking, obtaining, or holding housing as she currently resides in the subject property. In addition, Holt contends that Plaintiff’s claim that Holt refused to renew her lease in November 2019 due to her race is facially untrue as the majority of Plaintiff’s allegations pertain to Plaintiff’s residence in the Subject Property after that date. This is the same basis on which the Court sustained Holt’s previous Demurrer. In sustaining that Demurrer, the Court stated that “there are not specific facts indicating what type of harassment Plaintiff received, or facts demonstrating that the alleged attempt to prevent Plaintiff from holding housing was related to her protected traits.”

In amending her Complaint, Plaintiff added allegations that Plaintiff was a 59-year-old African American woman with a physical disability. (FAC ¶ 173.) Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants “by and through their managing agent Rachel Sproul commented on Plaintiff’s skin color, ethnic mannerisms, and refused to accommodate Plaintiff’s reasonable requests for accommodations due to Plaintiff’s physical disabilities.” (FAC ¶ 174.)  Finally, Plaintiff alleges that in or about August 2019, Defendants refused to renew Plaintiff’s lease “because she was an African American female, over the age of 40 years old, with a physical disability, and demanded that Plaintiff vacate her apartment by November, 2019.” (FAC ¶ 177.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has added sufficient allegations demonstrating harassment over Plaintiff’s race, age, and disability status to state a claim for Housing Discrimination. While Holt properly notes that a request for accommodation is not the same as harassment under section 12921, Plaintiff has added allegations regarding direct remarks by Holt’s agent regarding Plaintiff’s race. This, together with the myriad alleged failures to remedy Plaintiff’s uninhabitable unit, could allow a reasonable trier of fact to determine that the failure to repair the deficiencies represented an attempt to prevent Plaintiff from holding her housing, and that this attempt was due to her race, as exemplified by the alleged comments regarding Plaintiff’s race. 

Accordingly, Holt’s Demurrer to the Tenth Cause of Action is OVERRULED.

DATED: October 27, 2022 

____________________________

Hon. Robert S. Draper 

Judge of the Superior Court