Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 21STCV45663, Date: 2022-10-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV45663    Hearing Date: October 20, 2022    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On December 15, 2021, Plaintiffs Tamika Richards, Kenneth Richards, Jaida Todd, Kenndall Richards, Kenneth Richards Jr., and Kennlye Richards (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendant Brentwood Investment, LLC.  The Complaint alleges (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the implied warranty of habitability; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (4) private nuisance; (5) negligence; (6) wrongful eviction; (7) violation of Civil Code section 1950.5(1); and (8) violation of Civil Code section 1942.4.

On August 24, 2022, Defendant filed a motion to strike.  No oppositions were filed.

The request for judicial notice of the Complaint is granted.

The court may, upon a motion or at any time in its discretion: (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, subds. (a)-(b).)

Defendant moves to strike allegations related to punitive damages and the prayer for punitive damages.  A plaintiff can recover punitive damages in tort cases where “the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.”  (Civ. Code § 3294, subd. (a).)  Punitive damages thus require more than the mere commission of a tort.  (Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 894-895.)  “The mere allegation an intentional tort was committed is not sufficient to warrant an award of punitive damages.  [Citation.]  Not only must there be circumstances of oppression, fraud or malice, but facts must be alleged in the pleading to support such a claim. [Citation.]”  (Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166, fn. omitted.)   If Plaintiffs prove that Defendant failed to respond to repeated complaints about a cockroach infestation, rats and mice, and high levels of toxic mold, which caused skin rashes and insect bites (e.g., Complaint ¶¶ 19-28, 41, 51, 63), a jury may conclude Defendant acted with oppression.  These facts are sufficient to support a prayer for punitive damages.

However, a corporate employer can be liable for punitive damages only when an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct or was personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.  (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (b).)  Plaintiffs do not plead any facts showing an officer’s, director’s, or managing agent’s involvement.  Instead, they provide only the conclusory allegation that Defendant “consented to, approved, affirmed and ratified each and every action taken by the PROPERTY MANAGERS as hereinafter alleged.”  (Complaint ¶ 14.)  The term “PROPERTY MANAGERS” is not defined, and there are no facts showing how or why Defendant ratified the actions of Marlene Johnson.  (See Complaint ¶ 13.)

The motion to strike is GRANTED.  Plaintiffs did not file an opposition so they did not show how they can amend the complaint to remedy the deficiencies.  Therefore, no leave to amend is granted.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  Parties intending to appear are encouraged to appear remotely and should be prepared to comply with Dept. 48’s new requirement that those attending court in person wear a surgical or N95 or KN95 mask.

         Dated this 20th day of October 2022