Judge Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case Number: 23STCV18363, Date: 2024-02-29 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 23STCV18363, Date: 2024-02-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV18363 Hearing Date: February 29, 2024 Dept: 39

Alberta Wright, et al. v. Michael Lutomski, et al.

Case No. 23STCV18363

Motion to Strike

Plaintiffs filed this habitability case against Defendants Michael Lutomski (“Defendant Lutomski”) and Legit Painting, Inc. (“Defendant LP”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Defendant Lutomski now moves to strike the prayer for punitive damages and all related allegations.

Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading, may serve and file a motion to strike the whole pleading or any part thereof. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1322, subd. (b).) On a motion to strike, the court may: (1) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a)-(b); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782.

In ruling on a motion to strike punitive damages, “judges read allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth.” (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.) 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 oppression, fraud or malice. (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.)

Plaintiff alleges as follows: Defendant Lutomski purchased the property on or about July 26, 2017. (Complaint, ¶ 20.) Over two years later, in or about November 2022, the Los Angeles Housing Department issued a Notice of SCEP inspection for the property. (Id., ¶ 22.) Then, on or about January 25, 2023, the Housing Department issued a Notice and Order to Comply for a series of violations. (Id., ¶ 23.) One of the plaintiffs gave Defendant Lutomski the names of several licensed and bonded painters to address the issues. (Id., ¶ 25.) Defendant Lutomski ignored her and instead hired Defendant Legit Painting. (Id., ¶ 25.) Defendant Lutomski did not timely address most of the violations, as they began work on or about March 1, 2023. (Id., ¶ 28.) Legit Painting caused a fire at the property. (Id., ¶¶ 28-32.) As a result, the ceilings in Plaintiffs’ units collapsed or were compromised as a result of the fire and/or water from extinguishing the fires. (Id., ¶¶ 33-34.) Defendant Lutomski “failed to adequately secure the Property to protect Plaintiffs’ belongings.” (Id., ¶ 40.) Defendant Lutomski evicted Plaintiffs because “the repairs would take too long” and did not offer to pay relocation fees. (Id., ¶¶ 42-43.) Plaintiffs allege that “Defendant Lutomski’s refusal to pay Plaintiffs their relocation fees and his forceful termination of their tenancies was unlawful.” (Id., ¶ 43.) These allegations do not evidence malice, oppression, fraud, or recklessness.

Plaintiffs’ counsel argues that there is malice because Defendant Lutomski “allow[ed] his agents to use direct flames on the surface of the Property.” Plaintiff’s counsel also argues that Defendant Lutomski failed to repair the uninhabitable conditions for long periods of time and failed to secure the property. These allegations sound in negligence. Finally, Plaintiff’s counsel argues that Defendant Lutomski terminated Plaintiffs’ tenancy without engaging the Los Angeles Housing Department. Without more, this is not sufficient to establish a claim for punitive damages. Otherwise, every violation of law would support a claim of punitive damages.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

1. Defendant Lutomski’s motion to strike is granted.

2. The Court denies leave to amend, as Plaintiff’s counsel identifies no additional facts that would correct the deficiencies.

3. Defendant Lutomski shall file an answer within thirty (30) days.

4. The Court sets the following dates:

Final Status Conference: August 29, 2025, at 9:00 a.m.

Trial: September 9, 2025, at 9:30 a.m.

The parties shall prepare and file joint trial documents on or before August 22, 2025. The parties shall identify all witnesses they intend to call in their respective cases-in-chief, and identify and produce all exhibits they intend to introduce in their respective cases-in-chief, on or before August 25, 2025.

5. The parties shall comply with all pretrial procedures for Department #39. Jury fees shall be posted within ten (10) days or the parties shall waive jury.

6. Counsel for Defendant Lutomski shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.