Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case 21STCV39033 2023-01-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 21STCV39033, Date: 2023-01-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV39033 Hearing Date: January 13, 2023 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿

¿¿

HEARING DATE: January 13, 2022¿¿

¿¿

CASE NUMBER: 21STCV39033

¿¿

CASE NAME: Iisha Byas, et al. v. Property Management Association Inc., et al.

TRIAL DATE: None set¿

¿¿

MOTION:¿ (1) Motion to Strike

Tentative Rulings: (1) Motion to Strike is Granted with 20 days’ leave to amend

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual

Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on October 22, 2021. Plaintiffs allege the following facts: Plaintiff Iisha Byas’ mother, Ceylon Byas, was an employee of Defendant Property Management Associates, Inc. as an onsite property manager. The property was owned by Defendant Three Rainbows, LLC. Ceylon Byas was allegedly physically attacked by Defendant Sarah Bruce, a tenant at the property. As a result of this attack, Ceylon Byas died. On March 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging causes of action for: (1) Negligence; (2) Wrongful Death; (3) Survivorship Action; (4) Premises liability; (5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (6) Assault; and (7) Battery. However, Plaintiff’s FAC only alleges causes of action for Negligence, Wrongful Death, Survivorship Action, and Premises Liability against Defendant, Three Rainbows LLC.

Defendant, Three Rainbows, LLC, has moved to Strike portions of Plaintiff’s FAC because Defendant claims Plaintiff has not properly pled a basis for punitive damages in her causes of action and that Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages in her wrongful death cause of action is improper as a matter of law.

B. Procedural

On April 28, 2022, Defendant, Three Rainbows, LLC filed this motion to strike portions of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. On January 6, 2023, Defendant, Three Rainbows, LLC, filed a non-receipt of opposition to their motion to strike. The Court has received no opposition either.

II. MEET AND CONFER

Defendant set forth a meet and confer declaration in sufficient compliance with CCP § 435.5. (Declaration of Ramon R. Flores (“Flores Decl.”), ¶¶ 3-5.)

III. ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard

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. (Code Civ. Proc. § 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. (Code Civ. Proc. § 436.) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437.)

B. Discussion

Defendant moves to strike the allegations and prayer for punitive damages. To state a claim for punitive damages, Plaintiffs must allege specific facts rather than conclusions that Defendant’s conduct constitutes oppression, fraud, or malice. (Brousseau v. Jarrett (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 864, 872.

Civil Code § 3294 states, in relevant part: “(a) In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant. (b) An employer shall not be liable for damages pursuant to subdivision (a), based upon acts of an employee of the employer, unless the employer had advance knowledge of the unfitness of the employee and employed him or her with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others or authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct for which the damages are awarded or was personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. With respect to a corporate employer, the advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, ratification or act of oppression, fraud, or malice must be on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation. (c) As used in this section, the following definitions shall apply: (1) “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.”

Here, Plaintiffs FAC alleges that Defendants negligently failed to provide a safe environment for tenants, and their own employee, or take sufficient safety precautions to eliminate further threat of violence at the subject location. (FAC, ¶ 27.) Plaintiffs claim that as a direct and legal result of the negligence, carelessness, recklessness and/or other tortuous conduct of Defendants, Plaintiffs suffered and will continue to suffer extreme and sever emotional distress, mental anguish, and other economic and non-economic damages in amounts to be proven at trial. (FAC, ¶ 29.) Plaintiffs’ FAC also asserts that Defendants negligently, carelessly and recklessly owned, used, maintained and controlled their property so as to directly and proximately cause an unsafe condition resulting in Decedent’s fatal injuries and that Defendants failed to safely and reasonably control the subject premises. (FAC, ¶ 43.) However, Plaintiffs have failed to allege the requisite facts that Defendant acted despicably with willful and conscious disregard for the rights of Plaintiffs. There are no specific facts pled as to the type of conduct that Bruce engaged in and whether this conduct could foreseeably rise to the death of Plaintiffs’ decedent.

Here, Plaintiffs Cause of action for wrongful death and survivorship action alleges that Defendant, Three Rainbows, LLC had a non-delegable duty to provide the subject premises safe from unreasonable and foreseeable risks, and to remove known threats. (FAC, ¶ 34.) Plaintiffs’ FAC further alleges that Defendant acted in a despicable manner by failing to investigate or evict the tenant after the repeated violations and police intervention. (FAC, ¶ 34.) Plaintiffs assert that there were inadequate protection for tenants and Decedent from Bruce, and Defendants were notified of repeated police calls regarding Bruce due to altercations and physical threats of violence, as well as arrests including but not limited to June 2020 and November 2020. (FAC, ¶ 34.) Plaintiffs claim that Decedent reported the incidents on the premises to no avail, yet Defendant failed to act, to evict or even to warn the tenants or provide adequate and reasonable safety precautions, to protect Decedent and other tenants on the property from Bruce, whether by rule, warning or eviction. (FAC, ¶ 34.) Plaintiffs argue that Defendants were obligated to provide, employ, reasonably maintain and otherwise reasonably ensure the safety of the inhabitants at the subject premises, and negligently failed to provide a safe environment for tenants and their own employees, or take sufficient precautions to eliminate further threat of violence at the subject premises. (FAC, ¶ 35.)

Plaintiffs are barred from obtaining punitive damages on their wrongful death cause of action. “[P]unitive damages may not be recovered in an action for wrongful death." (West v. Johnson & Johnson Products, Inc. (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 831, 870, fn. 35.) However, “punitive damages are available [in a survivorship action].” (Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 788, 796.) Here, however, Plaintiffs have failed to plead the requisite specific facts to state a claim for punitive damages. Although Plaintiffs allege that Defendants acted in a despicable manner when failing to investigate or evict Bruce, Plaintiffs fail to allege that Defendants acted willfully or with conscious disregard for the rights of Plaintiff. As such, the Motion to Strike is GRANTED with 20 days’ leave to amend.

IV. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Strike is GRANTED with leave to amend.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.