Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCV00869, Date: 2023-08-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV00869    Hearing Date: August 16, 2023    Dept: G

Defendants Xiao Li Zhou, Zhu Si Lu, and Peggy Chen’s Motion to Strike Punitive Damages

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants Xiao Li Zhou, Zhu Si Lu, and Peggy Chen’s Motion to Strike Punitive Damages is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

This is a breach of the warranty of habitability action. In December 2020, Plaintiff Leticia Medina (Medina) assumed a lease for a condominium unit in Baldwin Park and shared the unit with Plaintiffs Radien Hernandez and Skarlett Hernandez. Plaintiffs allege the unit was owned or managed by Defendants Xiao Li Zhou (Zhou), Zhu Si Lu (Lu), and Peggy Chen (Chen). Plaintiffs allege Defendants failed to maintain the unit during Plaintiffs’ tenancy. In particular, Plaintiffs allege the presence of black mold in the kitchen cabinets, pincher bug infestations, a broken sink, wood particle fallout from aging kitchen cabinets, tripping hazards from sliding doors that did not latch properly, stairs without safety railings, non-functional shower faucets, electrical problems, and leaking windows.

While Medina notified Defendants of these conditions, Plaintiffs allege Defendants failed to remediate them. As a result, Medina made a complaint with the City of Baldwin Park regarding the unit’s issues in September 2022. Subsequently on October 19, 2022, the City of Baldwin Park issued a notice of violation to Zhou and Lu for a lack of smoke detectors, substandard electrical systems, substandard bathroom conditions, substandard interior moisture issues, substandard handrails and guardrails, and substandard ventilation systems. On March 20, 2023, Plaintiffs were forced to vacate the unit after Zhou served Plaintiffs with a sixty-day notice to vacate on January 4.

On March 23, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants and Does 1-10 alleging the following causes of action: (1) negligence, (2) tortious breach of implied warranty of habitability, (3) breach of the covenant of quiet use and enjoyment, (4) breach of contract, (5) nuisance, (6) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (7) statutory breach of implied warranty of habitability, and (8) retaliation.

On June 13, 2023, Zhou and Lu filed the present motion. Prior to filing on May 18, Zhou and Lu’s counsel met and conferred telephonically with Plaintiffs’ counsel and was unable to reach a resolution. (Spivey Decl., ¶ 3.) On August 2, Chen filed a notice of joinder to Zhou and Lu’s motion.

A hearing on the motion to strike is set for August 16, 2023, along with a case management conference.

ANALYSIS

Defendants move to strike Plaintiffs’ references to and requests for punitive damages. For the following reasons, the court DENIES Defendants’ motion.

Legal Standard

Motion to Strike

Upon a party’s motion or the court’s own motion, the court may strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a).) The court may also “[s]trike out 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, subd. (b).) “The grounds for a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437, subd. (a).)

Punitive Damages

Civil Code section 3294 allows punitive damages when a plaintiff establishes by clear and convincing evidence that a defendant is guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).) For the purposes of determining punitive damages, 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 of the rights or safety of others.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(1).) Oppression is defined as “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).) Lastly, fraud is defined as “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).)

“In addition to the requirement that the operative complaint set forth the elements as stated in section 3294, it must include specific factual allegations showing that defendant's conduct was oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious to support a claim for punitive damages.” (Today’s IV, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 1137, 1193.) Furthermore, “[p]unitive damages may not be pleaded generally.” (Ibid.)

Discussion

Defendants argue Plaintiffs fail to allege specific facts to support punitive damages. Throughout Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Plaintiffs allege Defendants ignored Plaintiffs’ repeated requests to remedy the issues with their unit. (Complaint, ¶ 21-23, 25.) They also allege Defendants failed to cure the defects noted by the City of Baldwin Park’s notice of violation. (Complaint, ¶ 35.) Plaintiffs further allege they were forced to leave after Defendants served with a 60-day notice to vacate. (Complaint, ¶ 34, 36.) Plaintiffs allege these failures and actions intended to cause Plaintiffs’ injury and a result of their attempt to assert their legal rights pursuant to California law. (Complaint, ¶ 84.)

Because Plaintiffs allege Defendants attempted to cause, or consciously and willfully allowed, Plaintiffs to suffer injury as an alleged result of their complaints, the court finds ample allegations to support Plaintiffs’ claim of malice and oppression. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to strike is DENIED.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion to strike punitive damages from Plaintiffs’ Complaint is DENIED.