Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 23STCV21783, Date: 2024-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV21783    Hearing Date: February 28, 2024    Dept: 39

James C. Keller v. West Angeles Housing Partners, L.P.

Case No. 23STCV21783

Motion to Quash

Demurrer

Case Management Conference

            Notice: The Court posts this tentative order in advance of the hearing.  If Plaintiff does not appear, he shall waive the right to be heard and shall submit to entry of this order. 

            Plaintiff James C. Keller (“Plaintiff”), a self-represented party, filed this action against Defendant West Angeles Housing Partners, L.P. (“Defendant”) asserting the following causes of action: (1) Civil Fraud in violation of Government Code section 14842.5(2); (2) Violation of Government Code section 129279(c)(1); (3) Harassment and retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), Government Code section 12940(j); (4) Business Malpractice in violation of Civil Procedure section 340.5; (5) Fraud; (6) Intentional Tort; (7) Negligence; and (8) Common Counts. 

Plaintiff alleges that he applied for residence at Defendant’s building and was rejected because his household annual income was greater than the allowable limit.  Plaintiff alleges that was “fraudulent and not true.”  Plaintiff alleges that he submitted his intake rental application on July 8, 2019, and that he received a “Notice of Application Ineligibility” on November 7, 2019.  Plaintiff alleges that he filed an appeal and there was a hearing on November 20, 2019, following which he received a letter dated December 9, 2019, stating: “A decision has been made to reinstate your application.”  However, Plaintiff alleges that he did not receive a unit and was placed on the wait list, which he learned on December 23, 2019. 

Defendant moves to quash service of the summons and complaint and, in the alternative, demurs to the claims based upon the statute of limitations, among other grounds.  Based upon his allegations, Plaintiff’s claims accrued no later than December 23, 2019.  This case was filed almost four years later, on September 11, 2023.  This is problematic because the statutes of limitations are as follows:

1.         Civil Fraud in violation of Government Code section 14842.5(2) – This statute does not apply to Plaintiff’s case but the statute of limitations for a fraud claim is three years, per Code of Civil Procedure section 338(d).

2.         Violation of Government Code section 129279(c)(1) – Assuming this claim arises under the FEHA, the status of limitations is two years, per Code of Civil Procedure section 12989.1.

3.         Harassment and retaliation in violation of the FEHA – The statute of limitations is two years, per Code of Civil Procedure section 12989.1.

4.         Business Malpractice in violation of Civil Procedure section 340.5 – Even assuming this claim applies to Plaintiff’s allegations, the statute of limitations is three years.

5.         Fraud – The statute of limitations is three years, per Code of Civil Procedure section 338(d).

6.         Intentional Tort – Plaintiff does not specify the intentional tort, but the statute of limitations based upon Plaintiff’s allegations is two years, per Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1.

7.         Negligence – The statute of limitations for negligence is two years, per Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1.

8.         Common Counts – This claim relies on the underlying statutes of limitations. 

Emergency Rule 9 tolled the statutes of limitations from April 1, 2020, through October 1, 2020, which was a period of 178 days.  However, this does not save Plaintiff’s claims because the longest statute of limitations would have run on June 19, 2023.  This case was filed on September 11, 2023.  Therefore, the claims are untimely.

            In addition, Plaintiff fails to articulate any actionable conduct by Defendant.  Plaintiff alleges that Defendant erred in determining that he did not qualify for low-income housing and then changed this decision when Plaintiff demonstrated the error.  Without more, this conduct does not amount to fraud, housing discrimination, harassment, retaliation, business malpractice, or any other claim alleged by Plaintiff.      

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

            1.         The Court sustains Defendant’s demurrer.

            2.         The Court denies leave to amend, as no amendment would cure the deficiencies in Plaintiff’s complaint.

            3.         The Court takes Defendant’s motion to quash off-calendar as moot.

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