Judge Stephen P. Pfahler, Case Number: 24STCV10830, Date: 2025-01-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 24STCV10830, Date: 2025-01-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV10830 Hearing Date: January 9, 2025 Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 1-9-25

Case # 24STCV10830

Trial Date: Not Set

DEMURRER

MOVING PARTY: Defendants, Haresh Jogani, et al.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs, Sanchez, et al.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Demurrer to the Complaint

· Alter Ego Allegations

Motion to Strike

· Alter Ego Allegations

· Allegations in Support of, and Claim for, Punitive Damages

SUMMARY OF ACTION:

On August 8, 2024, Plaintiffs Gloria Torres Sanchez, Isidro Javier Bon Torres, Kevin Alberto Bon Torres, Cesar Javier Bautista, Alan Sanchez, Jose Agustin Sanchez Hernandez, and Gloria Estefanie Bon Torres, filed a complaint against Defendants 3620 W. 102nd Street, Inc., Haresh Jogani, Jeet Jogani, and, Ritesh Desai for 1. Breach Of Implied Warranty of Habitability; 2. Tortious Breach of Implied Warranty Of Habitability; 3. Negligence; 4. Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress; 5. Private Nuisance; 6. Violation Of Civil Code, Section 1942.4; and 7. Violation Of Business And Professions Code, Section 17200. 8. Violation of the Inglewood Residential Rent Regulations Ordinance (Cal. Mun. Code Section 8-132 Et Seq.)

RULING

Demurrer: OVERRULED.

Defendants Haresh Jogani, Jeet Jogani, and, Ritesh Desai submit a demurrer to the alter ego allegations of the complaint. Defendants submit an extensive citation of the law regarding alter ego liability, while concluding the operative allegation in the complaint lacks sufficient support. Plaintiffs in opposition challenge reliance on unpublished and other inapposite caselaw, maintains the complaint sufficiently articulates alter ego liability, and challenges Defendants’ arguments as beyond the scope of the demurrer. Defendants in reply reiterates the “inequitable” result of allowing the alter ego claim to proceed without sufficient factual support.

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.]

Alter ego is not a cause of action, and therefore more properly the subject matter of a motion to strike. (PH II, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1682-1683 [While a demurrer is not the exclusive means to challenge a cause of action, a motion to strike generally applies to parts of a cause of action, claim for damages, or where the cause of action or primary right is barred as a matter of law]; see Quiroz v. Seventh Ave. Center (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1256, 1281 [“Where a whole cause of action is the proper subject of a pleading challenge, the court should sustain a demurrer to the cause of action rather than grant a motion to strike”].) The demurrer is OVERRULED.

Motion to Strike: DENIED.

Defendants submit a concurrent motion to strike the alter ego allegations and punitive damages claim. Plaintiffs counter both the alter ego allegations and punitive damages claims are sufficiently articulated, Defendants improperly rely on extrinsic inference and seek premature factual adjudication, and Defendants cite to inapposite caselaw. Defendants in reply reiterates the factual insufficiency of the alter ego claim.

Alter ego liability requires two elements: “‘(1) that there be such unity of interest and ownership that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individual no longer exist and (2) that, if the acts are treated as those of the corporation alone, an inequitable result will follow.’” (Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 300; Leek v. Cooper (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 399, 411.) To allege alter ego, plaintiffs must plead a unity of interest and ownership such that the separate personalities of the corporation and individuals do not exist, and that an inequity will result if the corporate entity is treated as the sole actor. (Tomaselli v. Transamerica Ins. Co. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1285.) Paragraph 10 of the complaint sufficiently articulates the elements for pleading alter ego liability. The court declines to consider any extrinsic evidence or factors submitted in the extensive authorities; such discussion is well beyond the scope of the motion. The motion to strike the alter ego allegations is DENIED.

On the punitive damages claim, Civil Code, Section 3294 authorizes punitive damages upon a showing of malice, oppression, or fraud, which are defined as follows:

(1) “Malice” means conduct which is 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.

(2) “Oppression” means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.

(3) “Fraud” means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.

The court finds the allegations regarding the knowing violation of habitability laws and standards demonstrates a conscious and knowing disregard for the rights and safety of tenants, thereby supporting the claim for punitive damages for purposes of the motion to strike. The motion to strike is DENIED as to this item.

The demurrer is therefore overruled and the motion to strike denied. Defendants to answer the complaint within 10 days of this order.

The court will concurrently conduct the Case Management Conference.

Moving Defendant to give notice.