Judge Stephanie M. Bowick, Case Number: 23STCV27213, Date: 2024-05-29 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Stephanie M. Bowick, Case: 23STCV27213, Date: 2024-05-29 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 19 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
If you desire to submit on a tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 19 before 08:00 a.m. on the day of the motion hearing. The e-mail address for submitting is SMCDept19@lacourt.org. The heading on your e-mail must contain the case name and number, and that you submit. For example, "Smith v. Jones BC551124, submit". The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent.

PLEASE NOTE, The above e-mail address is only to inform the Court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries or correspondence will not receive a response.

Case Number: 23STCV27213 Hearing Date: May 29, 2024 Dept: 19

RULING

Defendant Edward Jenkins Realty, Inc. dba Jenkins Property Management’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint is DENIED.

Defendant Edward Jenkins Realty, Inc. dba Jenkins Property Management to file and serve an Answer within ten (10) days.

Counsel for Plaintiffs to give notice.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a landlord-tenant dispute action. Plaintiffs Robert Kirts and Joshua Kirts (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring suit against Defendants Edward Jenkins Reality, Inc. and Paul D. Gerhardt, individually and as trustee of the Gerhardt Family Trust (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging the following causes of action:

1. Negligence;

2. Tortious Breach Of The Implied Warranty Of Habitability;

3. Breach Of Lease; and

4. Breach Of The Los Angeles County Rent Stabilization And Tenant Protections Ordinance.

Defendant Edward Jenkins Realty, Inc. dba Jenkins Property Management (hereafter, “Moving Defendant”) filed the instant Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint (the “Motion”).

GROUNDS FOR MOTION

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 435 and 436, Moving Defendant moves to strike punitive damages allegations.

MEET/CONFER

The Court finds that Moving Defendant substantially complied with the meet and confer requirements. (See Erin M. Davis Decl., ¶¶ 4-5.)

DISCUSSION

I. MOTION TO STRIKE

The court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, “[s]trike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 436(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(b).) A motion to strike cannot be based upon the grounds that a complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, but instead is properly based on grounds of superfluous or abusive allegations, or improprieties in form or procedure. (Ferraro v. Camarlinghi (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 509, 528-29.) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Code. Civ. Proc., § 437; Turman v. Turning Point of Central California, Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63 [“judges read allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth”].)

“In order to state a prima facie claim for punitive damages, a complaint must set forth the elements as stated in the general punitive damage statute, Civil Code section 3294.” (Turman, supra, 191 Cal.App.4th at 63.) Civil Code section 3294 permits recovery of punitive damages where, in an action for breach of obligation not arising from contract, the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty “of oppression, fraud, or malice….” (Civ. Code, § 3294(a).) Malice is conduct “intended by the defendant to cause injury to plaintiff, or despicable conduct that is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard for the rights or safety of others.” (Civ. Code, § 3294(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(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(c)(3).) “The mere allegation an intentional tort was committed is not sufficient to warrant an award of punitive damages.” (Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166.) “Not only must there be circumstances of oppression, fraud, or malice, but facts must be alleged in the pleading to support such a claim.” (Id.; see G.D. Searle & Co. v. Superior Court (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 22, 29.)

In other words, “[t]he mere carelessness or ignorance of the defendant does not justify the imposition of punitive damages.... Punitive damages are proper only when the tortious conduct rises to levels of extreme indifference to the plaintiff's rights, a level which decent citizens should not have to tolerate.” (Flyer's Body Shop Profit Sharing Plan v. Ticor Title Ins. Co. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1149, 1154; see American Airlines, Inc. v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1017, 1051 [“Punitive damages are appropriate if the defendant's acts are reprehensible, fraudulent or in blatant violation of law or policy.”].)

Similarly, punitive damages are, in general, available in claims for negligence, but “[i]n order to justify an award of punitive damages on this basis, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant was aware of the probable dangerous consequences of his conduct, and that he willfully and deliberately failed to avoid those consequences.” (Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 895-896.) Further, for nonintentional torts, an award of punitive damages is authorized “where defendant's conduct which causes injury is of such severity or shocking character that it warrants the same treatment as that accorded to willful misconduct-conduct in which the defendant intends to cause harm.” (Nolin v. National Convenience Stores, Inc. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 279, 286–287.) Moreover, “[i]t has long been the rule that conduct classified only as unintentional carelessness, while it may constitute negligence or even gross negligence, will not support an award of punitive damages.” (Id. at 285-286.)

Here, the Court finds that the Complaint alleges sufficient factual allegations to state a prima facie claim for punitive damages. The Court finds the allegations that, despite repeated requests and being on notice of dangerous conditions on the property stemming from the presence of harmful organisms, Defendants repeatedly failed and refused to remedy the conditions while simultaneously unlawfully charging Plaintiffs rent and forcing them to needlessly and repeatedly vacate and return to the property, (see, e.g., Compl., ¶¶ 5-30), are sufficient to constitute a prima facie case that Defendants willfully and consciously disregarded Plaintiff’s rights or safety, or subjected Plaintiff to a cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of her rights.

The Court notes that Moving Defendant failed to file any reply brief.

For the reasons explained above, the Motion is DENIED.