Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 23STCV27461, Date: 2024-03-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV27461    Hearing Date: March 18, 2024    Dept: 39

Megan Ozurovich v. McGowan Properties, LLC

Case No. 23STCV27461

Motion to Strike

Case Management Conference

            Plaintiff Megan Ozurovich (“Plaintiff”) filed this habitability case against Defendants McGowan Properties, LLC and Dolan & Knight Property Management, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”).  Now, Defendants move to strike the prayer for punitive damages and 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.)

Plaintiff alleges that she repeatedly complained about a cockroach infestation.  Plaintiff complained on January 24, 2023; May 1, 2023; and July 21, 2023, to no avail.  This may be sufficient to establish more that mere negligence, i.e., oppression or malice.  A cockroach infestation that goes unabated could pose a serious threat to a tenant’s health.  However, the defendants in this case are entities.  “[T]he imposition of punitive damages upon a corporation is based upon its own fault.  It is not imposed vicariously by virtue of the fault of others.” (City Products Corp. v. Globe Indemnity Co. (1979) 88 Cal. App. 3d 31, 36.) “Corporations are legal entities which do not have minds capable of recklessness, wickedness, or intent to injure or deceive. An award of punitive damages against a corporation therefore must rest on the malice of the corporation’s employees.  But the law does not impute every employee’s malice to the corporation. Instead, the punitive damages statute requires proof of malice among corporate leaders: the officers, directors, or managing agents.” (Cruz v. Home Base (2000) 83 Cal. App. 4th 160, 167, internal quotations and citation omitted.)  Plaintiff does not satisfy this pleading standard.  Plaintiff does not identify to whom she complained.  In other words, Plaintiff does not allege that Defendants’ officers, directors, or managing agents were aware of her complaints about the unit and failed to take action.  Plaintiff alleges only that Jonathony Dolan, who is Defendants’ “owner, manager, employee, and/or agent” initiated an eviction.  Plaintiff does not clearly allege that he was an officer, director, managing agent, or owner.

Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

1.         The Court grants Defendant’s motion to strike.

2.         The Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend.  Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days.

3.         If Plaintiff fails to do so, Defendants shall file an answer within thirty (30) days of Plaintiff’s deadline.

4.         The Court sets the following dates:

            Final Status Conference:        September 25, 2024, at 9:00 a.m.

            Trial:                                       October 7, 2024, at 9:30 a.m.

The parties shall comply with all pretrial procedures for Department #39.  The parties shall prepare and file joint trial documents on or before September 18, 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 September 18, 2025.

            5.         Jury fees shall be posted within ten (10) days or the parties shall waive jury. 

            6.         Defendant’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.