Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 22TRCV01641, Date: 2023-05-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 22TRCV01641, Date: 2023-05-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22TRCV01641 Hearing Date: November 20, 2023 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿

¿¿

HEARING DATE: November 20, 2023¿¿

¿¿

CASE NUMBER: 22TRCV01641

¿¿

CASE NAME: Christopher Malkus; Gabrielle Gray v. Danielle Wyss, et al.

.¿¿¿

MOVING PARTY: Defendants, Russ Property Management Corp.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs, Christopher Malkus; Gabrielle Gray

TRIAL DATE: February 3, 2025

¿¿

MOTION:¿ (1) Motion to Strike punitive damages as against Russ

Tentative Rulings: (1) GRANTED. 20 days leave to amend if Plaintiffs can correct the pleading deficiencies discussed below

I. BACKGROUND¿¿

¿¿

A. Factual¿¿

On February 16, 2023, Plaintiffs Christopher Malkus and Gabrielle Gray (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendant, Danielle Wyss, Trustee of the Sylvest-Wyss Family Trust 12/2/08, Robert Sylvest, Trustee of the Sylvest-Wyss Family Trust 12/2/08, Russ Property Management Corp., a Corporation, Danielle Wyss, an individual, Robert Sylvest, and DOES 1 through 10 (“Defendant”). On July 18, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging causes of action for: (1) Breach of Written Contract; (2) Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; and (3) Violation of California Civil Code § 1940, et seq., and Eviction Moratorium.

Defendant, Russ Property Management Corp filed a Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s FAC.

B. Procedural¿¿

On September 15, 2023, Defendant, Russ Property Management Corp. filed this Motion to Strike. On October 23, 2023, Plaintiffs filed an opposition. On October 27, 2023, Defendant Russ filed a reply brief.

¿II. ANALYSIS¿

A. Motion to Strike

¿ Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1).) 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, subd. (a); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782 [“Matter in a pleading which is not essential to the claim is surplusage; probative facts are surplusage and may be stricken out or disregarded”].) The court may also strike all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with California law, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).) An immaterial or irrelevant allegation is one that is not essential to the statement of a claim or defense; is neither pertinent to nor supported by an otherwise sufficient claim or defense; or a demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.10, subd. (b).) 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

The FAC seeks several different categories of damages, including punitive damages. By this Motion to Strike, Defendant Russ argues that Plaintiff’s FAC does not contain any specific factual allegations that Russ acted maliciously, oppressively, or fraudulently. Instead, Defendant Russ argues that Plaintiffs FAC lumps all Defendants together and does not specifically plead as to any actions directly performed by Russ or any other Defendant against Plaintiff. Civil Code section 3294, subdivision (a) authorizes punitive damages in non-contract cases “where the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.”

“Malice [is defined as] 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 for the rights and safety of others.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(1).) “Oppression” means “despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(2).) “Fraud” is “an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(3).) The Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts which, if proven could entitle Plaintiff to establish the malice prong of Civil Code section 3294.

In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that their FAC clearly outlines a pattern of conduct by Defendants and their agents intended to harass, intimidate, and retaliate against Plaintiffs during their tenancy. Although the Court notes that the allegations relating to harassment, intimidation, and retaliation of Plaintiffs may support a finding of punitive damages generally, and certainly may survive a motion to strike against a different defendant, there are no specific allegations in the FAC involving a basis of ground for recovery of punitive damages as to Defendant Russ. This Court does not allow a plaintiff to pursue punitive damages without detailed factual allegations as against each and every party against whom punitive damages are sought; a boilerplate allegation that each defendant was the agent of every other defendant is not specific enough to pursue punitive damages. The Court acknowledges that paragraph 14 of the FAC contends that the Landlords engaged Defendant Russ as property manager for Plaintiffs’ residential real property, there is no further allegation specifying what actions taken by Defendant Russ were fraudulent, malicious, or oppressive. For example, even in paragraphs 48 through 53, which Plaintiffs claim allege conduct purporting to give rise to punitive damages, Plaintiffs merely generally allege those actions were taken by “Defendants.” This is not enough to meet the pleading standard for punitive damages against Defendant Russ. Neither Defendant Russ nor this Court can know, based on the face of the pleadings, whether the conduct alleged in those paragraphs were taken by the Landlords or Russ Property Management. In Plaintiffs’ general allegations section involving prior history of other abuse, the title specifies that the claimed abuse was allegedly committed by the landlords. As such, this Court finds that Plaintiffs’ FAC does not state sufficient facts to maintain a prayer for punitive damages against Defendant Russ. Thus, this Motion to Strike is GRANTED. Plaintiff has twenty (20) days leave to amend.

¿¿¿

Moving party is ordered to give notice.