Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 22CHCV01531, Date: 2023-09-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22CHCV01531 Hearing Date: September 20, 2023 Dept: F49
Dept. F-49
Date: 9-20-23
Case # 22CHCV01531
Trial Date: Not Set
STRIKE
MOVING PARTY: Defendants, Bernard Feinstein
RESPONDING PARTY: Late Opposition / Plaintiff, Danielle
Love
RELIEF REQUESTED
Motion to Strike First Amended Complaint
·
Allegations in Support of, and Claim for,
Punitive Damages in the Retaliation Claim
SUMMARY OF ACTION
On December 5, 2018, plaintiff Danielle Love entered into
a two year lease with defendant Bernard Feinstein for certain premises at a
rental rate of $3,750/month. On December 30, 2020, Plaintiff notified Defendant
of a water leak thereby causing damage. An inspection and certain demolition
work was done, but according to Plaintiff no repairs occurred. On May 3, 2021,
Plaintiff reported the leak to City of Los Angeles Department of Building and
Safety, and filed a complaint with the Los Angeles County Department of Health.
The premises were inspected by the respective departments, thereby leading to a
citation from Building and Safety.
On January 25, 2022, Plaintiff was served with a 3-Day
Notice to Pay Rent or Quit the premises. (It’s not alleged in the operative
complaint whether and when Plaintiff elected to withhold the rent payment.)
Plaintiff alleges a successful application for covid rent relief thereby
preventing an unlawful detainer. Plaintiff continues to reside at the premises.
No repairs were ever undertaken as of the date of the operative complaint.
On December 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint for Breach
of Implied Warranty of Habitability, Negligence, Breach of Contract, Violation
of Civil Code section 1942.4, and Retaliation (Civil Code section 1942.5). On
April 17, 2023, Defendant answered the complaint. On April 19, 2023, Plaintiff
filed a first amended complaint, without leave of court following the answer,
for Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability, Negligence, Breach of Contract,
Violation of Civil Code section 1942.4, and Retaliation (Civil Code section
1942.5).
RULING: Denied
Defendant
Bernard Feinstein move to strike the allegations in support of, and claim for,
punitive damages in the first amended complaint, as pled in the retaliation
cause of action. [First Amended Comp., ¶¶ 35-41, Prayer, ¶ 6.] Defendant
challenges the claim for punitive damages based on a lack of any showing of
malicious or oppressive conduct.
Plaintiff in four (4) court day and six (6) calendar day
late opposition contends the retaliation claim allows for punitive damages as a
matter of law. Plaintiff reiterates the allegations of the operative pleading,
including all causes of action, as providing factual support for the claim.
Defendants in a timely reply object to the late opposition,
but even if the court considers the late filed opposition, challenges the
factual support.
The first amended complaint alleges the
claim for retaliation based on the filing of the three-day notice to pay rent
or quit following Plaintiff submitting complaints to local government agencies
regarding the condition of the premises. Defendant concedes of the right to a
party to recover punitive damages for a retaliation claim, as provided for in
Civil Code section 1942.5, subd. (h)(2). “(h) Any lessor or agent
of a lessor who violates this section shall be liable to the lessee in a civil
action for all of the following: (1) The actual damages sustained by the
lessee. (2) Punitive damages in an amount of not less than one hundred dollars
($100) nor more than two thousand dollars ($2,000) for each retaliatory act
where the lessor or agent has been guilty of fraud, oppression, or malice with
respect to that act.”
“The minimum and maximum levels of punitive damages set by the Legislature
place the punitive damages awarded here in the distinct category of a statutory
penalty or statutory damages.” (Rich v. Schwab (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 803, 816.) The Rich v. Schwab court
distinguished application under the Civil Code section 3294, notwithstanding
the similarity in language, in that imposition of punitive damages in the
conventional standard requires evidence of income in order to determine a level
of punishment and deterrence, whereas the statutory limit in no way risks
disproportionate award. (Id. at pp. 816-817.) Another court specifically found
the statutory basis for imposition of punitive damages removed any application
of the criteria in Civil Code sections 3294 and 3295 in that the statutory
penalty “serves a different function” that provided in Civil Code section 3294.
(Beeman v. Burling (1990) 216 Cal.App.3d
1586, 1597-1598.)
Contrary to the argument in opposition, the motion specifically
challenges the factual sufficiency of the retaliation claim for purposes of
meeting the nebulously defined punitive damages threshold for a statutory based
cause of action. The plaint language of the statute requires acknowledgment of
“fraud, oppression,
or malice with respect to that act [of retaliation].” The court is well within
its discretion to disregard the four court day late opposition.
Even considering the opposition, the court finds the actual
language of the subject cause of action constitutes a series of conclusions and
presumption of an entitlement to $2,000 in punitive damages based on the
existence of the cause of action. Nevertheless, the previously incorporated
introductory allegations present a lengthy description of the lengthy and
ongoing period of disrepair of the premises, denial of any notice, and then a
retaliatory action upon Plaintiff seeking remedies to the described disregard
to Plaintiff’s living conditions. The court finds the alleged circumstances
demonstrate a reckless disregard for the rights and safety of Plaintiff and/or
oppressive conditions within the plain language of the statute.
Again, the court in no way condones late filing, but to grant the
motion on an otherwise sufficiently pled claim inefficiently delays
adjudication of the action. The motion to strike is therefore denied. Defendant
to answer the complaint within 10 days.
Defendant to give notice.