Tentative Ruling

HEARING DATE: November 14, 2023 

CASE NUMBER: 22TRCV00625 

CASE NAME: Carlton Turner v. Gardena Terrace Inn, et al. 

MOVING PARTY: Defendants, Kaylee & Haley Hospitality, LLC dba Gardena Terrace Inn, and Gardena Terrace Inn, LLC 

 

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Carlton Turner (No Opposition) 

 

TRIAL DATE: None Set. 

MOTION: (1) Demurrer

(2) Motion to Strike 

Tentative Rulings: (1) Defendant’s Demurrer is sustained without leave to amend.  The case will proceed as to the cause of action for negligence only  

(2) Defendant’s Motion to Strike is mooted 

 

I. BACKGROUND 

A. Factual

 

On July 26, 2022, Plaintiff, Carlton Turner (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants, Gardena Terrace Inn, Gardena Terrace Inn, LLC, Anand Desai, and DOES 1 through 20. On August 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (SAC”). The SAC alleges causes of action for: (1) Battery; (2) Negligence; (3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (4) Fraudulent Concealment; (5) Public Nuisance; and (6) Breach of Contract.  

 

B. Procedural 

 

On August 25, 2023, Defendants, Kaylee & Haley Hospitality, LLC dba Gardena Terrace Inn, and Gardena Terrace Inn, LLC filed a Demurrer and Motion to Strike. To date, no opposition has been filed.  This is the third demurrer to the same causes of action, the Court having sustained the two prior demurrers with leave to amend. 

 

II. MOVING PARTY’S GROUNDS 

Defendants, filed their demurrer to the SAC on the grounds that they argue the First Cause of Action for Battery, the Third Cause of Action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, the Fourth Cause of Action for Fraudulent Concealment, and the Sixth Cause of Action for Breach of Contract fail as a matter of law since each claim is uncertain, and fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the demurring parties.   

 

 

III. ANALYSIS

Battery 

 

In this Court’s June 12, 2023 minute order, it noted Plaintiff’s FAC failed to allege any time period of Defendants’ intentional or reckless acts. Plaintiff’s FAC failed to add in how long Defendants knew there was an infestation elsewhere in the hotel or in Plaintiff’s room that they failed to eradicate. Additionally, this Court noted that the only difference from the original complaint as compared to the FAC was paragraph 21 – which alleged online reports at websites such as Yelp and Trip Advisor of individual, unauthenticated and anonymous reports as recently as 6 months prior to Plaintiff’s occupancy. As the Court noted, this was not enough to show that the front desk had actual knowledge of a prior report or complaint as to the room to which Plaintiff was assigned, and that the online reviews from 6 months prior to Plaintiff’s occupancy was insufficient to show actual knowledge. Plaintiff’s SAC does nothing to remedy any of the questions or guidelines offered by this Court in the previous minute order. The SAC still lacks the time period for Defendants’ alleged intentional or reckless acts, and still offers the same evidence of the online reviews, which the Court has already found to be insufficient of showing that Defendants knew or and intentionally or recklessly disregarded information that Plaintiff’s room had bed bugs prior to his occupancy.  

 

Because there is no opposition, and Plaintiff has now been given three bites at the apple, the Court’s tentative ruling is to sustain the demurrer as to the cause of action for battery without leave to amend.  

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 

 

“The elements of a prima facie case for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress are: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff’s suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant’s outrageous conduct. Conduct to be outrageous must be so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community.” (Wilson v. Hynek (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 999, 1009, citation and ellipses omitted.) 

 

In this Court’s June 12, 2023 minute order, the Court noted that Plaintiff’s FAC failed to allege the extreme and/or outrageous conduct on behalf of the Defendants. This Court noted that the FAC also failed to allege whether there were or were not intervening hotel guests (in between the online complaints and Plaintiff’s stay) who made such complaints or reports. Instead of addressing these concerns, Plaintiff’s SAC merely continues to allege in a conclusory manner, that Front desk personnel intentionally did not disclose the material fact of the bedbug infestation, during check-in, a fact known to those employees an agents. (SAC, ¶ 82.) Plaintiff’s deficient SAC appears to offer proof that Plaintiff cannot allege that Defendants acted in an extreme and/or outrageous way. As noted above, there is no allegation of time periods of the alleged prior knowledge of a claimed bedbug infestation in Plaintiff’s room or elsewhere in the hotel.  

 

Because there is no opposition, and Plaintiff’s SAC still fails for the same reason his original complaint failed, the Court’s tentative ruling is to sustain the demurrer as to the cause of action for IIED without leave to amend.  

Fraudulent Concealment 

 

“The elements of a cause of action for fraudulent concealment are: (1) concealment of a material fact; (2) by a defendant with a duty to disclose; (3) the defendant intended to defraud by failing to disclose; (4) plaintiff was unaware of the fact and would not have acted as it did had it known the fact; and (5) damages.” (Butler America, LLC v. Aviation Assurance Company, LLC (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 136, 144.) The facts constituting the alleged fraud must be alleged factually and specifically as to every element of fraud, as the policy of “liberal construction” of the pleadings will not ordinarily be invoked. (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645.) To properly allege fraud against a corporation, the plaintiffs must plead the names of the persons allegedly making the false representations, their authority to speak, to whom they spoke, what they said or wrote, and when it was said or written. (Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 153, 157.) 

In this Court’s minute order on June 12, 2023, it noted that Plaintiff’s FAC had failed to address deficiencies the Court had pointed out in the original complaint in its minute order on March 9, 2023. This Court noted that Plaintiff’s complaint and FAC lacked allegations as to specificity of time period, and laid out for Plaintiff that if Defendant was aware of a current and uncorrected or untreated infestation but rented the same room to Plaintiff anyway, such a specificity requirement would more likely be met. Even more pointedly, the Court noted that with respect to the allegation of “intentional failure to disclose,” Plaintiff should allege facts regarding what was said during check-in, whether Plaintiff inquired about the room’s condition, what the “front desk personnel” allegedly knew at check in time, what was said and who they interacted with when Plaintiff first brought up the bedbug issue and checked out of his room, etc.. Instead of addressing these deficiencies, Plaintiff’s SAC again relies on the insufficient argument that the hotel was on notice from the online reviews by other prior guests. (SAC, ¶ 94.) Because it appears that Plaintiff is unable to provide allegations sufficient for a cause of action for fraudulent concealment, this Court SUSTSAINS the demurrer to the fraudulent concealment claim without leave to amend.  

Breach of Contract 

 

“The elements of a defamation claim are (1) a publication that is (2) false, (3) defamatory, (4) unprivileged, and (5) has a natural tendency to injure or causes special damage. The defamatory statement must specifically refer to, or be of and concerning, the plaintiff.” (John Doe 2 v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1300, 1312, quotation marks and citation omitted.) 

 

In this Court’s previous minute order, it noted, as it did in its ruling on demurrer to the original complaint, that regardless of what Plaintiff refers to as the realities of modern-day hotel booking, the modern or traditional breach of contract cause of action must either attach a copy of the terms of the contract or allege the material terms in the body of the complaint. The Court notes that the allegations under the cause of action for Breach of Contract in the FAC and SAC are exactly the same. Plaintiff again has not attached any contract or alleged any material details of the contract in the body of the SAC. As such, for the same reasons, the demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.  

 

B. Motion to Strike  

 

The Court has sustained the demurrer to all intentional tort causes of action, thus mooting the Motion to Strike.
  

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend. Additionally, Defendant’s Motion to Strike is MOOTED.  

Defendants are ordered to give notice.