Judge: Stephanie M. Bowick, Case: 24STCV01077, Date: 2024-11-06 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: 24STCV01077 Hearing Date: November 6, 2024 Dept: 19
DEMURRER IS SUSTAINED, IN PART, AND THE MOTION TO STRIKE IS DENIED AS MOOT.
PROCEEDING:
(1) Demurrer to Complaint; (2) Motion to Strike Portions of Complaint
MOVING PARTY: Defendant 409, LLC d/b/a The Reserve Lofts
OPPOSING PARTY: Plaintiff Samantha Chapman
TENTATIVE RULING
(1) Defendant 409, LLC d/b/a The Reserve Lofts’ Demurrer to Complaint is OVERRULED IN PART and SUSTAINED IN PART, with leave to amend.
(2) Defendant’s Motion to Strike Portions of Complaint is moot.
Counsel for Plaintiff Samantha Chapman to give notice and file and serve a Second Amended Complaint in 20 days.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case arises in a complaint for premises liability. Plaintiff Sarah Chapman (Plaintiff) brings suit against Defendants The Reserve Lofts, 409 LLC (Defendant), and Does 1 to 99. The Complaint alleges that on January 17, 2022, Plaintiff sustained injuries resulting from using a dangerous and defective staircase in Unit 304, an apartment she rented on property owned by Defendants and located at 409 W. Olympic Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90015 (the Premises). (First Amended Complaint [FAC], ¶ 6.) Prior to renting the apartment, Defendants allegedly informed Plaintiff that her apartment was free of defects. (FAC, ¶¶ 25-26.)
The Complaint alleges six causes of action for: (1) Premises Liability; (2) Breach of Contract; (3) Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability; (4) Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability - Tort; (5) Maintenance of a Nuisance; and (6) Negligence.
Defendant
demurs to the Complaint and moves to strike punitive damages and attorney’s
fees from the Complaint.
GROUNDS FOR MOTIONS
(1) Demurrer
Defendant demurs to the Complaint’s second, third, fourth, and fifth causes of action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivisions (e) and (f).
Defendant argues that the Complaint is uncertain and fails to state sufficient facts regarding all claims.
(2) Motion to Strike
Defendants move to strike allegations of fraud and punitive damages from the Complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 435 and 436.
MEET/CONFER
Counsel for Defendants complied with their statutory meet-and-confer requirements prior to filing the instant motions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.41, subd. (a), 435.5, subd. (a).)
DISCUSSION
I. DEMURRER
A. Demurrer for Uncertainty
Defendants demur to the Complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(f) on the grounds it is uncertain.
A demurrer to a pleading lies where the pleading is uncertain. (Code Civ. Proc., §430.10, subd. (f).) “Uncertainty” includes ambiguous and unintelligible. (Id.) “A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) Moreover, “[a] special demurrer should be overruled where the allegations of the complaint are sufficiently clear to apprise the defendant of the issues which he is to meet.” (Gressley v. Williams (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 636, 643.)
Here, the Complaint is not so uncertain that Defendants cannot reasonably respond to it.
Therefore, the demurrer for uncertainty is OVERRULED in its entirety.
B. Demurrer for Sufficiency
A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint
states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 740,
747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally, with a
view to substantial justice between the parties. (Code Civ. Proc. § 452; Stevens
v. Superior Court (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 594, 601.) In a demurrer
proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via
proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.
App. 4th 968, 994.) “We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts
properly pleaded but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.
We accept the factual allegations of the complaint as true and also consider
matters which may be judicially noticed.” (Mitchell v. California Department
of Public Health (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1000, 1007.) “The only issue involved
in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with
extraneous matters, states a cause of action.” (Hahn, supra, 147
Cal.App.4th at p. 747.) “To survive a demurrer, the complaint need only allege
facts sufficient to state a cause of action; each evidentiary fact that might
eventually form part of the plaintiff’s proof need not be alleged.” (C.A. v.
William S. Hart Union High School District (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861,
872.)
1. Second Cause of Action - Breach
of Contract
Defendant argues that the FAC contains conclusory allegations, fails to include a copy of the lease agreement, and fails to recite the specific terms of the lease. Defendant also argues that the FAC fails to explain how “a stairwell design defect” relates to the premises in Plaintiff’s apartment being in working order.
In opposition, Plaintiff argues the FAC is sufficient because it specifies the contract is written, lists covenants implied in every contract—including the covenant of food faith and fair dealing, which presupposes that Defendant would maintain the premises in a habitable condition free of dangers and hazards—and states Defendant improperly maintained the premises. (FAC, ¶¶ 25-27.) Plaintiff asserts the FAC states the “essential terms and conditions of the agreement” by incorporating them haec verba. (FAC, ¶ 25.)
“A cause of action for breach of contract requires pleading of a contract, plaintiff’s performance or excuse for failure to perform, defendant’s breach and damage to plaintiff resulting therefrom.” (McKell v. Washington Mutual, Inc. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1457, 1489 [citation omitted].) “A written contract may be pleaded either by its terms—set out verbatim in the complaint or a copy of the contract attached to the complaint and incorporated therein by reference—or by its legal effect.” (Ibid.) “[T]o plead a contract by its legal effect, plaintiff must ‘allege the substance of its relevant terms. This is more difficult, for it requires a careful analysis of the instrument, comprehensiveness in statement, and avoidance of legal conclusions.’” (Ibid.)
Here, the FAC alleges that Plaintiff and Defendants entered into a written lease agreement for apartment Unit 304 of the Premises on or about July 23, 2021. (FAC, ¶ 25.) At the time of signing the lease, Defendant informed Plaintiff that Unit 304 was in working order and free from defects. (FAC, ¶ 6.) The FAC alleges Plaintiff performed all conditions, covenants, and promises required of her under the lease agreement. (FAC, ¶ 27.) The FAC alleges Defendant breached the lease agreement by failing to abide by the terms of the lease agreement, including improperly maintaining the handrail of a staircase in Plaintiff’s apartment. (FAC, ¶¶ 7, 27.) Defendant’s breach caused Plaintiff to sustain injuries to her body and nervous system and damages of medical and other incidental expenses. (FAC, ¶¶ 30-32.)
The Court disagrees with Defendant and finds that Plaintiff sufficiently pleads breach of contract.
Accordingly,
Defendant’s demurrer to the second cause of action is OVERRULED.
2. Third and Fourth Causes of Action - Implied Warranty of Habitability - Contract and Tort
Defendant argues that the FAC is factually insufficient because Plaintiff’s general allegations that Defendant knew of the stairway handrail issues and failed to fix them do not satisfy the first, second, or third elements of a breach of implied warranty of habitability claim. The FAC does not allege that Defendant’s inaction substantially interfered with her right to use and enjoy the Premises for her tenancy. The FAC also fails to allege facts showing Plaintiff provided notice to Defendant of the stairway handrail defect. The FAC only states “[the stairway handrail] injured Plaintiff in spite of significant advanced warning and notice,” but does not allege giving any such notice to Defendants. The FAC does not allege Defendant failed to correct the deficiency within a reasonable time after notice. Finally, the FAC also fails to state facts showing that the subject stairway handrail is a materially defective condition affecting habitability of the Premise.
In opposition, Plaintiff argues that she properly alleges a claim for breach of implied warranty of habitability. The FAC does not directly address the elements of the claim but does state that every contract includes an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which creates a presumption that Defendant would maintain the Premises in a habitable condition free from dangers and hazards.
Every residential lease contains an implied warranty of habitability. (Green v. Superior Court (1974) 10 Cal.3d 616, 637.) “The elements of a cause of action for breach of the implied warranty of habitability “are the existence of a material defective condition affecting the premises’ habitability, notice to the landlord of the condition within a reasonable time after the tenant’s discovery of the condition, the landlord was given a reasonable time to correct the deficiency, and resulting damages.” (Erlach v. Sierra Asset Servicing, LLC (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1297.) A landlord must promptly repair any condition of which the landlord has actual or constructive notice. (Person v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1185, 1205-1206.) To establish constructive notice, the plaintiff must allege facts showing that “the condition had existed for such a period of time and was of such an obvious nature that the [defendant], in the exercise of due care, should have discovered the condition and its dangerous character.” (Gov. Code, § 835.2, subd. (b).)
Here, the FAC alleges the staircase in Plaintiff’s apartment was dangerous and defective due to its design and improperly maintained handrails. (FAC, ¶¶ 7-9.) The FAC further alleges that Defendant had significant advanced warning and notice of the condition of the staircase because Defendant caused the condition and knowingly refused to take action to repair the condition despite advanced warning. (FAC, ¶ 8.) The contract claim does not allege Plaintiff gave actual notice to Defendant of the defective staircase or that the defective staircase was so obvious that Defendant would have discovered its dangerous character. The tort claim alleges Defendant rented the apartment to Plaintiff even though the apartment included a staircase containing improper handrails in violation of California Code of Regulations title 25 section 1504(a) which lists the requirements for stairways in housing. (FAC, ¶ 38.) Plaintiff provides a conclusory statement saying the defective stairwell violates this regulation, but does not allege facts showing how the staircase violates this regulation.
Accordingly,
the demurrer to the third and fourth causes of action is SUSTAINED.
4. Maintenance of a Nuisance
Defendant argues that Plaintiff cannot bring a nuisance claim against Defendant because the alleged interference must come from an outside source not the owner of the property. The FAC does not allege facts showing that Defendant maintained a nuisance created by another person or should have knowledge of the existence of a nuisance. Additionally, the FAC does not allege that Plaintiff did not consent to Defendant’s conduct or that Defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm.
In opposition, Plaintiff states that nuisance claims rest upon conduct which interferes with the use and enjoyment of property or land. Plaintiff asserts Defendant deprived Plaintiff of the use and enjoyment of her unit by allowing a dangerously defective staircase to exist and to be used in Plaintiff’s apartment. This act and omission unreasonably and substantially interfered with Plaintiff’s interest in the Premises.
“Code of Civil Procedure section 731 specifically authorizes an action by any person whose property is injuriously affected, or whose enjoyment of property is lessened by a nuisance.” (Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 903, 919.) A nuisance is “[a]nything which is injurious to health, including, but not limited to, the illegal sale of controlled substances, or is indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property[.]” (Civ. Code, § 3479.) To plead private nuisance, the plaintiff must plead facts proving (1) “an interference with [the] use and enjoyment of [plaintiff’s] property”; (2) “the invasion of the plaintiff’s interest in the use and enjoyment of the land must be substantial, i.e., it caused the plaintiff to suffer substantial actual damage”; and (3) the interference with the protected interest must also be unreasonable, “i.e., it must be of such a nature, duration, or amount as to constitute unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of the land.” (Today’s IV, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 1137, 1176.)
In Stoiber v. Honeychuck, the court found that the plaintiff sufficiently plead that a defective condition constituted a private nuisance because the complaint stated that Plaintiff repeatedly notified defendant landlord’s specific employees (giving names) about the defective conditions and that defendant landlord knowingly maintained these conditions even though the plaintiff repeatedly gave notice. (Stoiber, supra, 1010 Cal.App.3d at p. 920.) The defendant landlord’s actions lead to the plaintiff’s inability to use and enjoy her property.
Here, unlike the Stoiber complaint, the FAC does not allege facts establishing Plaintiff notified Defendant or Defendant’s agents of the defective staircase. Nor does Plaintiff allege facts that Defendant knowingly, intentionally, or willfully allowed the defective staircase to remain after she notified Defendant. The FAC states a conclusory allegation that Defendants’ acts and omission deprived Plaintiff of “the safe, healthy and comfortable use of Unit 304 of the subject premises . . . by allowing a dangerously defective staircase” to unreasonably and substantially interfere and invade Plaintiff’s interest. (FAC, ¶ 43.) Thus, this cause of action suffers from the same deficiencies as Plaintiff’s implied habitability of warranty causes of action.
Accordingly,
the demurrer to the fifth cause of action is SUSTAINED.
II. MOTION TO STRIKE
In light of the Court’s ruling on the Demurrer the Motion to
Strike is denied as moot.
CONCLUSION
Defendant’s special demurrer for uncertainty is OVERRULED. Defendant’s general demurrer is OVERRULED, IN PART as to the second cause of action and SUSTAINED, IN PART as to the third, fourth, and fifth causes of action, with leave to amend.
The Motion to Strike is DENIED as moot.
Plaintiff to file and serve a Second Amended Complaint in 20 days.
Plaintiff
shall give notice.