Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 24PSCV01281, Date: 2024-09-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24PSCV01281 Hearing Date: September 5, 2024 Dept: G
Defendants HK Realty Inc. and Legacy Partners, Inc.’s Motion
to Strike Certain Allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint
Respondent: NO OPPOSITION
TENTATIVE
RULING
Defendants HK Realty Inc. and Legacy Partners, Inc.’s Motion
to Strike Certain Allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint is GRANTED without leave
to amend.
BACKGROUND
This is an action for breach of the warranty of
habitability. In February 2019, Plaintiff Sara Gomez entered into a written
lease agreement with Defendants HK Realty Inc. (HK Realty) and Legacy Partners,
Inc. (Legacy Partners) in which Gomez agreed to pay monthly rent for a
residential property in Rowland Heights. Subsequently, Gomez alleges the
Rowland Heights property contained defective conditions including severe water
leakage, mold, and dust mites. Gomez also alleges HK Realty and Legacy Partners
failed to remediate these conditions.
On April 22, 2024, Gomez filed a complaint against HK
Realty, Legacy Partners, and Does 1-10, alleging the following causes of
action: (1) negligence, (2) breach of the implied warranty of habitability, (3)
private nuisance, and (4) breach of the implied covenant of peaceful and quiet
enjoyment.
On June 28, 2024, HK Realty and Legacy
Partners filed the present motion. Prior to filing the present motion, HK
Realty and Legacy Partners’ counsel telephonically met and conferred with
Gomez’s counsel. (Conti Decl., ¶ 4.)
A hearing on the present motion is set for
September 5, 2024, along with a case management conference on September 11,
2024.
ANALYSIS
HK Realty and Legacy Partners move to strike
punitive damages from Gomez’s Complaint. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS their 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).)
An immaterial or irrelevant allegation
includes “(1) An allegation that is not essential to the statement of a claim
or defense,” “(2) An allegation that is neither pertinent to nor supported
by an otherwise sufficient claim or defense,” or “(3) A demand for
judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint or
cross-complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.10.)
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
In this case, the FAC alleges that the
Rowland Heights property has long-standing leakage problems which led to water
damage and mold, and posed a health hazard. (Complaint, ¶ 4, 7.) HK Realty and
Legacy Partners were aware of these issues (Complaint, ¶ 4, 7, 8, 9, 16, 19, 26.)
Despite their knowledge, they refused to make the necessary and proper repairs
for cost reasons. (Complaint, ¶ 4, 8, 9, 16, 19, 20, 26, 31.) Instead, Plaintiff
alleges Defendants “chose to do cheap repairs, including band aid approaches,
such as patching, painting and using repair persons that were not properly
qualified.” (Complaint, ¶ 16.) These repairs were allegedly “slipshod,
neglectful, and cheap.” (Complaint, ¶ 16.) The FAC alleges these allegations
establish HK Realty and Legacy Partners engaged in despicable conduct that was
in conscious disregard of the risks to tenant health. (FAC, ¶ 4, 16, 19, 26.)
But while the FAC alleges HK Realty and
Legacy Partners consciously disregarded the health risks posed by the water
leaks at the Rowland Heights property, the court finds that the allegations
above establish they did not in fact disregard potential health risks as they
attempted to make repairs.
While Gomez may be able to establish their
repairs were negligent and insufficient, Gomez cannot allege they were acting
in conscious disregard. Furthermore, failing to properly repair water leaks at
a tenant’s property does not constitute despicable conduct that “is so vile,
base, contemptible, miserable, wretched or loathsome that it would be looked
down upon and despised by ordinary decent people.’” (See Mock v. Michigan
Millers Mutual Ins. Co. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 306, 331.)
Accordingly, HK Realty and Legacy Partners’
motion is GRANTED.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing,
HK Realty and Legacy Partners’ motion to
strike punitive damages from the Complaint is GRANTED without leave to
amend.
Defendants are to file an Answer to the FAC, with punitive damages stricken, in ten (10) days.