Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 23CHCV01562, Date: 2023-11-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV01562    Hearing Date: November 15, 2023    Dept: F49

DEMURRER

MOVING PARTY: Defendants, Stewart Silver, et al.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Beatrix Nagy

RELIEF REQUESTED

Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint

·         1^st Cause of Action: Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability

·         2^nd Cause of Action: Negligence

·         3^rd Cause of Action: Negligent Hiring

·         4^th Cause of Action: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

·         5^th Cause of Action: Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

·         6^th Cause of Action: Violation of Bane Act

·         7^th Cause of Action: Private Nuisance

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Beatrix Nagy alleges a tenancy in an Recreational Vehicle (RV) part in Santa Clarita owned and/or managed by Defendants Oceans 11 RV Park, LLC dba Cali lake RV Resort, and Stewart Silver. Plaintiff resides in a “converted” “recreational room” rather than any form of vehicle. In the last two years of Plaintiff’s tenancy, Plaintiff maintains the unit flooded eight times, suffers from mold and insect infestation, contains missing or damaged windows, lacks sufficient drainage, a leaking roof, non-working and exposed electrical outlets, and damaged flooring. Plaintiff maintains that upon demanding repairs, no such maintenance or work was performed, and Defendants instead sought to force Plaintiff from the property.

On May 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint for Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability, Negligence, and Negligent Hiring. On June 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint for Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability, Negligence, Negligent Hiring, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, Violation of Bane Act, and Private Nuisance

RULING: Overruled.

Defendants Oceans 11 RV Park, LLC dba Cali lake RV Resort (Oceans 11), and Stewart Silver (Silver) submit a demurrer to the entire first amended complaint on grounds of failure to allege each and every cause of action. Plaintiff in opposition maintains all causes of action are sufficiently pled. The court electronic filing system shows no reply on file at the time of the tentative ruling publication cutoff.

A demurrer is an objection to a pleading, the grounds for which are apparent from either the face of the complaint or a matter of which the court may take judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (a); see also Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The purpose of a demurrer is to challenge the sufficiency of a pleading “by raising questions of law.” (Postley v. Harvey (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 280, 286.) “In the construction of a pleading, for the purpose of determining its effect, its allegations must be liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice between the parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.) The court “ ‘ “treat[s] the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law . . . .” ’ ” (Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 525.) In applying these standards, the court liberally construes the complaint to determine whether a cause of action has been stated.  (Picton v. Anderson Union High School Dist. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 726, 733.)

“A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616; Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139 [“[U]nder our liberal pleading rules, where the complaint contains substantive factual allegations sufficiently apprising defendant of the issues it is being asked to meet, a demurrer for uncertainty should be overruled or plaintiff given leave to amend.]

The ”factual summary” demurrer relies on the identification of third party “Farkas” whom Defendants allege originally rented the subject premises for storage, then ended up taking up residence with plaintiff Nagy into the unit. Farkas refuses to leave the premises. As presented in the standard, the court cannot take any notice of the existence of Farkas, the denial of any residential agreement, and/or the actual basis of the parties agreement, in examining the subject demurrer.

1^st Cause of Action, Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability: Overruled

The argument lacks any legal authority and depends on the extrinsic facts regarding the lack of a rented residential space. The court declines to consider the argument. The demurrer is overruled as to this cause of action.

2^nd Cause of Action, Negligence: Overruled.

Defendants maintain the complaint insufficiently articulates negligence. The operative complaint articulates the perfunctory factors for negligence, albeit without any specific facts. (Ladd v. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal.4th 913, 917.) Given the incorporation of the prior allegations regarding the condition of the premises and refusal to correct, the court finds negligence sufficiently articulated. The demurrer is overruled.

3^rd Cause of Action, Negligent Hiring: Overruled.

In the demurrer to the subject cause of action argument, Defendants challenge the lack of any allegations of concealment and justifiable reliance, which appears nowhere within the cited authority, CACI number 426. Again, the subject cause of action itself lacks facts, but within the incorporation of the prior allegations regarding the condition of the premises and refusal to correct, the court finds negligent hiring, retention and supervision, sufficiently articulated. The demurrer is overruled.

4^th Cause of Action, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: Overruled.

“‘The elements of a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress are (1) outrageous conduct by the defendant, (2) intention to cause or reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress, (3) severe emotional suffering, and (4) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress.’ [¶] Conduct is extreme and outrageous when it exceeds all bounds of decency usually tolerated by a decent society, and is of a nature which is especially calculated to cause, and does cause, mental distress. Liability does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities.” (Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hospital (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 590, 617.) The operative complaint sufficiently alleges the claim. The demurrer is overruled.

5^th Cause of Action, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress: Overruled.

Negligent infliction of emotional distress depends on the existence of a valid negligence claim. The court finds the negligence claim sufficiently pled and therefore a supporting claim for direct victim emotional distress. (Burgess v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1064, 1071.) The demurrer is overruled.

6^th Cause of Action, Violation of Bane Act: Overruled.

Defendants again provide uncited authority in regards to the requirements for the Bane Act. The complaint alleges a threat of displacement from the premises if further complaints occurred. [First Amend. Comp., ¶ 18.] The court declines to consider unmade arguments. (Civ. Code, § 52.1.) The demurrer is overruled.

7^th Cause of Action, Private Nuisance: Overruled.

The argument lacks any citation to legal authority. The court declines to make the arguments for Defendants. The operative complaint sufficiently articulates private nuisance. The demurrer is overruled.

The demurrer is overruled. Defendants to answer within 10 days of this order.

Moving Defendants to give notice.