Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 23STCV14470, Date: 2023-10-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV14470    Hearing Date: October 26, 2023    Dept: 39

American Jewish University v. Casiano Estates Homeowners Association, et al.

Case No. 23STCV14470

Motion to Strike

            Plaintiff American Jewish University (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against the Casiano Estates Homeowners Association and the Casiano-Bel Air Homeowners Association (collectively, “Defendants”), asserting causes of action for violation of Los Angeles Municipal Code section 67.02, private nuisance, public nuisance, and declaratory relief.  Plaintiff alleges as follows:

            Defendants operate a security checkpoint at the intersection of Casiano Road and Stephen S. Wise Drive.  (Complaint, ¶ 9.)  In or about June, 2022, Defendants installed signs along Casiano Road directing non Bel Air Park resident traffic to use the left lane only and to stop at the security checkpoint.  (Ibid.)  Resident traffic, on the other hand, may bypass the security checkpoint.  (Ibid.)  Defendants installed the signs without a permit.  (Id., ¶ 10.)  In or about August 2022, the City of Los Angeles directed Defendants to remove the signs, but they refused to do so.  (Id., ¶ 11.)  In or about January 2023, the City issued a citation to Defendants and again directed them to remove the signs, but they refused to do so.  (Ibid.)  As of the date of the complaint, Defendants have not removed the illegal signs, which interfere with Plaintiff’s use, access to, and enjoyment of the campus.  (Id., ¶¶ 11-12.)  However, Plaintiff concedes that after this case was filed, Defendants have removed the illegal signs.  (Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to Strike, p. 4, fn. 1.)    

            Now, Defendant Casiano Estates Homeowners Association (the “Moving Defendant”) moves to strike the prayer for punitive damages.  To state a prima facie claim for punitive damages, a plaintiff must allege the elements set forth in the punitive damages statute, Civil Code section 3294.  (Coll. Hosp., Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 721.)  Per Civil Code section 3294, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant has been guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud.  (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).)  “Malice is defined in the statute as conduct 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.”  (Coll. Hosp., Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 725.)  “The mere allegation an intentional tort was committed is not sufficient to warrant an award of punitive damages.  Not only must there be circumstances of oppression, fraud or malice, but facts must be alleged in the pleading to support such a claim.”  (Grieves v. Superior Ct. (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166, internal citations and footnotes omitted.) 

            The instant complaint alleges no facts suggesting that the Moving Defendant acted with malice, oppression, or fraud.  For example, there are no facts suggesting that the Moving Defendant’s actions were undertaken with the intent to cause injury to Plaintiff.  There are no facts suggesting that the Moving Defendant’s actions were undertaken in an effort to oppress Plaintiff.  Nor are there any acts suggesting that the Moving Defendant engaged in any fraudulent activity, such as an effort to conceal its activities.  Simply, there are no facts that distinguish this case from an ordinary nuisance case, which is not sufficient to invoke punitive damages.  Plaintiff alleges no facts suggesting that an amendment would be successful.

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

            1.         The Moving Defendant’s motion to strike is granted without leave to amend.

            2.         The Moving Defendant shall file an answer within thirty (30) days.

            3.         The Moving Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.