Judge: Robert S. Draper, Case: 22STCV03370, Date: 2023-03-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV03370    Hearing Date: March 2, 2023    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 Second Amended Complaint is OVERRULED.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND   

This is an action for uninhabitable conditions in a residential property. The operative Second Amended 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”). (SAC ¶¶ 1-2.) Beginning in February 2020, Plaintiff became aware of toxic mold in the Subject Property. (SAC ¶ 7.) Since then, Plaintiff has repeatedly informed Defendants of the uninhabitable conditions in the Subject Property. (SAC ¶ 8.) Defendants not only failed to remedy the issues, but actively worked to conceal the existence of the dangerous conditions. (SAC ¶ 9.) As a result, Plaintiff has suffered numerous health conditions. (SAC ¶¶ 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 First Amended Complaint asserting the same ten causes of action.

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

On October 27, 2022, the Court sustained Holt’s Demurrer as to the Sixth Cause of Action and overruled the Demurrer as to the Tenth Cause of Action.

On November 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint.

On December 22, 2022, Holt filed the instant Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint.

On February 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed an Opposition.

On February 23, 2023, Holt filed a Reply.

DISCUSSION 

                          I.          DEMURRER

Holt Demurs to the Sixth Cause of Action in the Second Amended Complaint pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(e). This is the same cause of action for which the Court sustained Holt’s previous demurrer to the First Amended 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 “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.”

In the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff adds allegations that Defendants “took extreme measure to actively conceal the water intrusion, sewage backup, contaminated wastewater, and toxic mold from Plaintiff and did so with reckless disregard of the probability that Plaintiff would suffer emotional distress upon learning of Defendants’ actions.” (SAC ¶ 136.) Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants falsely misrepresented that “Defendants would repair and remediate the situation and did so with reckless disregard of the probability that Plaintiff would suffer emotional distress upon learning of Defendants’ actions.” (Ibid.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has amended the Complaint to add sufficient allegations demonstrating Defendants not only failed to remedy Plaintiff’s concerns, but actively concealed the state of the apartment with the intent to cause Plaintiff distress. While Holt argues that Plaintiff’s new facts of concealment “do not describe or explain how such could occur while Plaintiff was residing in the unit the entire time and thus make no logical sense,” this is an argument properly considered by a trier of fact rather than law.

Holt also argues that Plaintiff fails to allege facts demonstrating severe emotional distress.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ actions caused Plaintiff “severe stomach pain, headaches, anxiety, depression, loss of appetite and other symptoms associated with physical manifestations of sever[e] mental and emotional distress.” (SAC ¶ 144.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged severe emotional distress for the pleading stage.

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

Defendants have thirty days to file a responsive pleading.

DATED: March 2, 2023 

____________________________

Hon. Robert S. Draper 

Judge of the Superior Court