Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 23TRCV01505, Date: 2023-09-01 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV01505, Date: 2023-09-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23TRCV01505 Hearing Date: December 1, 2023 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿

¿¿

HEARING DATE: December 1, 2023¿¿

¿¿

CASE NUMBER: 23TRCV01505

¿¿

CASE NAME: Wilfredo Cardenas; ROES 1-10 v. 11651-11652 York Avenue, LLC, et al.

¿¿

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, 11651-11652 York Avenue, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Wilfredo Cardenas

TRIAL DATE: Not Set.

¿¿

MOTION:¿ (1) Motion to Strike

Tentative Rulings: (1) Defendant’s Motion to Strike is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND¿¿

¿¿

A. Factual¿¿

On May 11, 2023, Plaintiff, Wilfredo Cardenas filed a Complaint against Defendant, 11651 – 11652 York Avenue, LLC, and DOES 1 through 20. The Complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Breac of Contract; (2) Breach of the Implied Warranty of Habitability/Tenantability; (3) Breach of the Implied Warrant of Quiet Enjoyment; (4) Negligence; (5) Nuisance; and (6) Retaliatory Acts (Violation of California Civil Code § 1942.5.

Defendant now files a Motion to Strike portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint pertaining to punitive damages.

B. Procedural¿

On September 18, 2023, Defendant filed this Motion to Strike. On September 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition brief. To date, no reply brief has been filed.

¿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

Here, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s allegations in support of Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages do not contain facts that support allegations of punitive damages. Defendant argues the Complaint pleads improper matter and is not drawn in conformity with the laws of the state with respect to claims for exemplary damages under Civil Code § 3294 and contains irrelevant, false, and inconsistent matter.

“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).)

Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not asserted any specific factual allegations showing that Defendant’s alleged conduct was malicious, oppressive, or fraudulent to justify a claim for punitive damages. Defendant further argues that there are no specific factual allegations of intentional malicious, oppressive, or fraudulent conduct as to Defendant. Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s claims are based on theories of negligence, and the conduct complained of by plaintiff in this case does not constitute malicious, oppressive, or fraudulent conduct. Further, Defendant notes that there are no specific factual allegations of advanced knowledge or ratification of any allegedly wrongful acts. Defendant points out that Plaintiff does not even name any specific employees or explain how any particular employee supposedly engaged in wrongful conduct.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that he has sufficiently alleged facts for exemplary damages. Plaintiff argues that Defendant not only failed to make needed repairs to the conditions at the Subject Property after Plaintiff gave Defendant notice, but Defendant also refused to make said repairs (Complaint, ¶¶ 27, 71.) Specifically, Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that even after a Government agency cited the landlord for the issues, Defendants failed to comply and correct the problems. (Complaint, ¶ 18.) Moreover, Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that in response to the notification of the issue from the tenant, not only did Defendant not repair the issue, but they retaliated against Plaintiff by serving a 3-day notice to quit followed by an unlawful detainer almost immediately after Plaintiffs allegedly notified Defendant of the needs for repair, in violation of anti-retaliation provisions of the Civil Code specifically related to the duty to provide habitable living conditions. (Complaint, ¶¶ 21, 72, 73.) Here, the Court finds that, if proven true, the facts alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint could support the a prayer of relief for punitive damages. As such, the Motion to Strike is DENIED.

III. CONCLUSION¿¿

¿¿¿

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Strike is DENIED.

¿¿¿

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.