Judge Thomas D. Long, Case Number: 23STCV04694, Date: 2024-03-12 Tentative Ruling

On March 3, 2023, Plaintiffs filed this action for (1) violations of the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (“ICRAA”), (2) invasion of privacy, and (3) declaratory relief. Plaintiffs later named Defendant TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions Inc. as Doe 1.

Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice of two other complaints in different actions is denied as irrelevant.

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context, accepting the alleged facts as true. (Nolte v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1406.)

A. Plaintiffs Do Not Allege Facts Showing that Defendant is a Landlord Under ICRAA.

Under ICRAA, any person requesting an investigative consumer report in connection with the hiring of a dwelling unit must make certain disclosures and include a written form with a box to check indicating that the consumer wishes to receive a copy of any report that is prepared. (Civ. Code, § 1786.16, subds. (a)(3), (b).) “An investigative consumer reporting agency or user of information that fails to comply with any requirement under this title with respect to an investigative consumer report is liable to the consumer who is the subject of the report in an amount equal to the sum of all the following: [¶] (1) Any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or, except in the case of class actions, ten thousand dollars ($10,000), whichever sum is greater. . . .” (Civ. Code, § 1786.50, subd. (a).)

Plaintiffs allege that Equity Residential Management LLC manages and operates the Hesby Apartments, Huxley Apartments, Glo Apartments, Mozaic at Union Station Apartments, Next on Sixth Apartments, Pacific Place Apartments, Stoa Apartments, Aero Apartments and Altitude Apartments, and many other complexes throughout California. (Complaint ¶ 21.) There are no facts about Defendant, formerly Doe 1, with respect to its role in this action. Plaintiffs do include the conclusory allegations that “Defendants” requested and obtained investigative consumer reports about Plaintiffs during the processing of the applications for the named apartment buildings, but Plaintiffs then proceed to allege that only Equity Residential Management required Plaintiffs to complete the applications and was required to comply with ICRAA. (Complaint ¶¶ 28-31, 51, 57(d)-(i).)

Plaintiffs allege: “By acting and failing to act as herein alleged, the Defendants have violated the ICRAA and invaded the Plaintiffs’ rights of privacy by obtaining investigative consumer reports about the Plaintiffs without complying with mandatory requirements under the ICAA for getting investigative reports about the Plaintiffs.” (Complaint ¶ 59.) For the reasons stated with the first cause of action, the second cause of action also does not allege facts about Defendant.

Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that it was Equity Residential Management LLC who required Plaintiffs to “consent to a release of information” that included “information regarding each of the Plaintiffs’ character, reputation, and mode of living.” (Complaint ¶¶ 29-31.) Plaintiffs do not allege how their privacy was invaded through this consensual inquiry.

Plaintiffs’ claim for declaratory relief is based on the conduct alleged in the first two causes of action. (Complaint ¶¶ 61-64.)

Accordingly, the demurrer to the third cause of action is also sustained with leave to amend.

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 Paragraphs 5, 43, 55, and 57 and Paragraphs 1 through 10 of the prayer relief of the Prayer for Relief.

Paragraph 57 seeks injunctive relief for violation of ICRAA. ICRAA is limited to damages and attorney fees. (Civ. Code, § 1786.50.) The motion is GRANTED without leave to amend.

Defendant contends that “Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, and 10 of the Prayer for Relief must be stricken as irrelevant because Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged any cause of action under which the sought relief may be properly awarded.” With the Court sustaining Defendants’ demurrer to all causes of action, the motion is moot for these items. If Plaintiffs can remedy the deficiencies with their factual allegations, then these general requests for relief would be available.

Defendant moves to strike references to punitive damages (paragraphs 5, 43, 55). 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.) There are no such factual allegations here. The motion is GRANTED on this ground with 30 days’ leave to amend.

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.

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court