Judge: Shirley K. Watkins, Case: 21STCV44114, Date: 2022-07-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV44114    Hearing Date: July 25, 2022    Dept: T

            [TENTATIVE] ORDER:  Defendant Rainbow Seekers Group, LLC’s Demurrer to the Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint is OVERRULED in its entirety. The Motion to Strike is GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

Introduction

Defendant Rainbow Seekers Group, LLC (“Defendant”) demurs against the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) filed by Plaintiffs Adela Rodriguez, Salvador Climaco, Jennifer Climaco, and Carlos Climaco (collectively, “Plaintiffs”). The demurrer places into issue all four causes of action raised in the FAC, which include: (1) negligent breach of implied warranty of habitability, (2) nuisance, (3) breach of implied covenant of quiet use and enjoyment, and (4) negligent violation of statutory duty.  Defendant also moves to strike the following portions of the FAC: (1) Plaintiffs’ DFEH “right to sue;” (2) Exhibits supporting DFEH “right to sue,” (3) Plaintiffs’ demand for attorney’s fees, (4) Plaintiffs’ demand for punitive and exemplary damages, and (5) Prayer for relief for exemplary and punitive damages.   

Discussion

Demurrer

Negligent Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability

As to the negligent breach of implied warranty of habitability claim, Defendant argues that it has been insufficiently pleaded. Specifically, Defendant argues that the FAC does not provide any supporting facts that Plaintiffs ever informed Defendant of the underlying issues that would have led to alleged breach of the implied warranty of habitability. (Demurrer at pp. 4-5.) However, the Court is not persuaded by this argument.  The FAC specifically alleges that Plaintiffs notified Defendant of the poor living conditions, and it is alleged that Defendant was cited and notified by the City of Los Angeles that the conditions at the property constituted a public nuisance. (FAC ¶ 7.) Also, the FAC alleges that, based on information and belief, Defendant had “actual and constructive knowledge of each of these said defective conditions and failed to correct said conditions within a reasonable period of time after receiving said knowledge of their existence and having been requested by the Plaintiffs to repair the same, including notices sent by Los Angeles Housing Department.” (FAC ¶ 13.) Defendant fails to cite to any legal authority that establishes a strict pleading standard for a breach of the implied warranty of habitability claim.  Thus, because the FAC alleges that what the defects were and that Defendant was notified of these defects but took no action, the first cause of action has been sufficiently alleged.

Accordingly, Defendant’s demurrer to the first cause of action is overruled.

Nuisance

As for the Plaintiffs’ nuisance claim, Defendant argues that the FAC does not provide a timeline of events, and it has not been sufficiently alleged to explain how Defendant interfered to cause the alleged nuisance. (Demurrer at pp. 5-6.) Again, the Court finds this argument unpersuasive. The FAC alleges that the nuisance claim is premised on the poor habitable conditions of the premises, which is under Defendant’s control. (FAC ¶ 18-19.) These conditions are specifically outlined in the FAC. (FAC ¶11(A)-(D).) In terms of a timeline, the FAC alleges that these defects were present at or near the start of the lease of the premises and lasted until Plaintiffs’ last day at the premises. (FAC ¶ 11.) With regard to a more accurate timeline, this information can be gathered through discovery. (Khoury v. Maly’s of Cal., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)

Accordingly, because the second cause of action has been sufficiently pleaded, the Court overrules Defendant’s demurrer on this issue.

Breach of Implied Covenant of Quiet Use and Enjoyment

As for Plaintiffs’ breach of implied covenant of quiet use and enjoyment claim, Defendant again argues that this cause of action is uncertain because the FAC does not sufficiently allege how it interfered with Plaintiffs' implied covenant of quiet use and enjoyment.  (Demurrer at pg. 6.) However, as stated above, there are sufficient allegations that put Defendant on notice as to defective conditions of the premises that Defendant allegedly failed to cure. (FAC ¶¶ 11(A)-(D), 24-25) and this interfered with Plaintiffs' quiet use and enjoyment of the premises.

Accordingly, Defendant’s demur to the third cause of action is overruled.

Negligent Violation of Statutory Duty

Lastly, as to Plaintiffs' negligent violation of statutory duty claim, Defendant argues that the FAC fails to establish a special relationship between the parties and that the alleged breach is conclusory. (Demurrer at pp. 6-7.) The Court finds this argument frivolous because the FAC alleges that the relationship between the parties is one of landlord and tenant. (FAC ¶¶ 4-5, 10.) As Plaintiffs’ landlord, Defendant owed Plaintiffs a statutory duty pursuant to Civil Code § 1941.1 and Health and Safety Code § 17920.3. (FAC ¶¶ 10, 27.) Furthermore, the FAC alleges that Defendant’s breach stems from its failure to comply with the law to maintain or rectify habitable living conditions at the premises. (FAC ¶¶ 7, 11(A)-(D), 14, 28.)

Accordingly, Defendant’s demur to the fourth cause of action is overruled.

Motion to Strike

            Defendant also moves to strike various portions of the FAC. The Court shall address them in turn.

Allegations and Exhibits Relating to DFEH

Here, Plaintiffs have not alleged any violation of the FEHA. Based on the DFEH complaint attached as Exhibit 1 of the FAC, Plaintiffs claimed that they faced discrimination, retaliation, and harassment from Defendant. (FAC, Exh. 1.) However, this does not appear to have any bearing to the claims raised in the FAC. It is noted that Plaintiffs’ opposition fails to explain how the FAC can be construed as a FEHA action. Thus, the allegations relating to Plaintiffs’ right to sue and exhaustion of administrative remedies as well as to related exhibits are irrelevant. (Code Civ. Proc. § 436.)

Accordingly, the Court strikes the introductory paragraph titled “Exhaustion of Administrative Proceedings” and its contents found on page 1 of the FAC as well as Exhibits 1 and 2 of the FAC.

Attorney Fees

Here, the FAC fails to identify a statute or contract that enables the recovery of attorney fees. (Anger v. Borden (1951) 38 Cal. 2d 136, 145 [“It is well settled that a party is not entitled to attorney fees except where authorized by statute or by contract.”]) Because Plaintiffs do not assert a FEHA action against Defendants, Plaintiffs cannot rely on Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire District (2015) 61 Cal.4th 97, 115 for the proposition that a claim for attorney fees is warranted.

Therefore, the Court strikes Plaintiffs claim for attorney fees.

Punitive Damages

            Upon review of the FAC, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages has not been sufficiently alleged because it lacks specific allegations to show that Defendant acted with oppression, malice, or fraud. While Plaintiffs may have substantiated their claims asserted in the FAC, this does not necessarily infer that the pleading standard for punitive damages have been met. (Lehto v. Underground Constr. Co. (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 933, 944 [reasoning that a claim for punitive damages must be pleaded with particularity].) Plaintiffs must still meet the heightening pleading standard associated with punitive damages. (Id.) Moreover, defective conditions of a premises and a failure to correct on their own are not sufficient to sustain a claim for punitive damages. (McDonell v. American Trust Company (1955) 130 Cal.App.2d 296, 297-299.) Thus, Plaintiffs would need to allege additional facts to support their claim for punitive damages. However, in opposition, Plaintiffs have failed to explain how they can cure this defect.

            Therefore, the Court strikes Plaintiffs' allegations and prayer for punitive damages.  

            Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to strike without leave to amend.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Court OVERRULES Defendant’s demurrer to the FAC in its entirety and GRANTS without leave to amend Defendant’s motion to strike. Defendant is ordered to file an answer within ten (10) days of this Order.