Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 22STCV38658, Date: 2023-10-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV38658    Hearing Date: October 26, 2023    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On December 12, 2022, Plaintiffs Jaime Aguayo and Giovani Tzul filed this action against Defendants 839 S. Carondelet Street LLC and J.K. Residential Services Inc.

On April 7, 2023, Defendants filed a motion to strike.

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).)

Defendants move to strike allegations relating to 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).)  “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.)

The Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs suffered uninhabitable living conditions due to Defendants’ failure to maintain the property despite knowing about the substandard conditions.  (E.g., Complaint ¶ 20-38.)  These conditions include cockroach, termite, mosquito, rat, bedbug, and flea infestation; mold contamination; dysfunctional plumbing systems and electrical supplies; inoperable HVAC system; insufficient ventilation; inadequate weatherproofing; insufficient fire protection systems; improperly installed windows; and insufficient security.  (E.g., Complaint ¶¶ 21, 43.)  Defendants knew about the conditions from direct complaints from tenants, but they responded inconsistently and ineffectively, or not at all.  (Complaint ¶¶ 26, 28, 32, 36.)  If Plaintiffs prove that Defendants failed to respond to complaints about these conditions, a jury could conclude that Defendants acted with oppression or malice. 

However, a corporate employer can be liable for punitive damages only when an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation had advance knowledge of the unfitness of the employee and employed him or her with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others, authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct, or was personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.  (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (b).)  The Complaint contains only conclusions, no facts, about Defendants’ ratification.  (E.g., Complaint ¶¶ 3-4, 13, 16, 36, 42.)

The motion to strike is GRANTED with 30 days’ leave to amend.

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.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 26th day of October 2023