Judge: Sandy N. Leal, Case: 2022-01286940, Date: 2023-06-15 Tentative Ruling
Motion to Strike Portions of Complaint
The unopposed Motion to Strike brought by Defendants Quyen Mai and Orange County Property Management is granted, with 15 days leave to amend.
Defendants seek to strike the request for punitive damages included in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, asserting Plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege malicious or oppressive conduct. (Motion: 5:26-27.) In particular, Defendants assert there are no allegations to show Defendants intended to injure Plaintiffs and, at most, the allegations demonstrate negligence. (Motion: 7: 11-16.) Defendants analogize to the circumstances in McDonnell v. American Trust Co. (1955) 130 Cal.App.2d 296.
The plaintiffs in McDonnel “sought damages allegedly caused by water entering their store because of defects in the roof and roof drains…” (Id. at 297.) The complaint alleged Defendants knew of the defective conditions and knew “that said defective conditions could cause damage and injury to the property and persons of the tenants,” but refused to remedy the defective conditions. (Id. at 298.) The plaintiffs therein asserted the Defendant intended to injure the plaintiffs. (Id. at 299.)
The Court in McDonnel held: “The gist of the first part of the count…is that defendant, aware of the defective condition of the roof and drains and knowing they could cause damage, refused to repair them. Those facts do not spell an intentional tort (a conscious, deliberate intent to injure the plaintiffs) or conduct so recklessly disregardful of the rights of others (sometimes characterized as wanton or willful misconduct) as would show the ‘malice’ in fact which the statute (Civ. Code, §3294) requires as a predicate for punitive in addition to actual damages.” (Id. at 299.) “The actor’s conduct is in reckless disregard of the safety of another if he intentionally does an act or fails to do an act which it is his duty to the other to do, knowing or having reason to know of facts which would lead a reasonable man to realize that the actor’s conduct not only creates an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to the other but also involves a high degree of probability that substantial harm will result to him.” (Id. at 299-300.) The Court concluded that “[t]he second count falls considerably short of alleging any such violation of duty when it merely pleads that defendant, aware of the defective condition and that such condition could cause damage, refused to repair.” (Id. at 300.)
In this instance, Plaintiffs allege they were exposed to “tenant harassment,” including “threats, verbal assaults, discrimination, harassment and maltreatment,” however, the Complaint does not allege that such conduct was engaged in by Defendants. (¶11(a) of Complaint.) Additionally, the Complaint contains no further allegations, identifying such conduct.
Thereafter, the Complaint alleges Plaintiffs were exposed to mold, asbestos, caustic chemicals, leaking plumbing, “illegal construction,” electrical wiring not up to code, vermin, rats, bugs and rubbish. (¶11 of Complaint.) Similar to McDonnell, the Complaint alleges Defendants were aware of the habitability violations, knew the violations would “seriously and materially affect Plaintiffs’ tenancy,” but failed to correct the same. (¶12 of Complaint.) The Complaint alleges “Defendants have failed to remediate unsafe and unhabitable conditions, that took place in the property due to Defendants neglect.” (¶24 of Complaint.)
Notably, there are no allegations that Defendants intended to harm Plaintiffs, when they failed to make the necessary repairs. Likewise, there are no allegations which demonstrates Defendants acted in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights. In particular, while the Complaint repeatedly alleges Defendants failed to make the necessary repairs, it is unclear whether Defendants attempted repairs, but simply did so negligently.
For example, the Complaint alleges Defendants “engaged in illegal construction and demolition” of the Subject Property and “continued to assure [Plaintiffs that] all repairs were done competently…” (¶16 and ¶20 of Complaint.) While the Complaint proceeds to allege that “inspections from the city continued to be failed (sic) due to the lack of repairs done” (¶20 of Complaint), the allegations leave open the possibility that Defendants attempted repairs – conduct which would suggest Defendants did not intend to harm or disregard the rights of Plaintiffs. Similarly, while the Complaint at one point alleges that “Defendants lied about the conditions of the unit telling Plaintiffs that all repairs had been made when no such repairs had been made” (¶22 of Complaint), the Complaint does not allege Defendants knew this statement to be false, at the time it was made.
In addition to the above, the Court notes that Plaintiff has not opposed the instant motion and, therefore, appears to concede the Complaint does not adequately allege punitive damages. (See Herzberg v. County of Plumas (2005) 133 Cal. App. 4th 1, 20.)
Based on all of the above, the motion to strike is granted; however, the Court will allow leave to amend.