Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 23STCV24923, Date: 2024-12-26 Tentative Ruling



Case Number: 23STCV24923    Hearing Date: December 26, 2024    Dept: 48

 

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

REGINALD RAINES,

                        Plaintiff,

            vs.

 

FORD APARTMENTS, L.P., et al.,

 

                        Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

      CASE NO.: 23STCV24923

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE

 

Dept. 48

8:30 a.m.

December 26, 2024

 

On October 12, 2023, Plaintiff Reginald Raines filed this habitability action against Defendants Ford Apartments L.P. and Single Room Occupancy Housing Corporation.

On April 25, 2024, Defendants filed an answer and 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 seek to strike portions of Paragraphs 49, 62, and 70, which relate to punitive damages, as well as 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.)

Defendants acknowledge that “the complaint does make specific allegations of events that Plaintiff asserts shows a pattern of conduct which are alleged to warrant the imposition of punitive damages.”  (Motion at p. 4.)  However, Defendants contend that the violations in common areas over a three-year period “are rarely found more than once, demonstrating that the property manager corrected the condition.”  (Id. at p. 6.)

Plaintiff alleges that he has “constantly and consistently complained to the Defendants” about “slum-housing and untenantable conditions,” including inadequate sanitation, inadequate plumbing and gas, dampness and mold, vermin infestation, inadequate electrical wiring, structural hazards, nuisance, failure to maintain premises in a good and safe condition, and inadequate mechanical equipment.  (Complaint ¶ 16.)  “Defendants have continually disregarded their obligations at the Subject Property and allowed the premises to consistently fail official housing inspections and reinspections from The City of Los Angeles Housing Department,” resulting in citations for recurring violations.  (Complaint ¶ 18.)  Specifically, the Housing Department discovered missing drywalls and ceiling in the restroom with exposed plumbing line, broken laundry equipment, damaged ceiling vents, missing ceiling tiles, debris, and live cockroaches.   (Complaint ¶ 19.)  Despite being discovered by September 2021, the conditions were not remedied upon reinspection in December 2021, August 2022, January 2023, and June 2023.  (Complaint ¶ 19.)  Defendants also failed to comply with COVID safety regulations, which the Housing Department observed from June 2020 to August 2022.  (Complaint ¶ 20.)

Plaintiff further describes “longstanding dilapidation,” including a continual flow of water down into the building’s lower units and penetrating their walls, ceilings, and floors; pooling of filthy water; mold and mildew from leaks; unsanitary common areas with debris, mold, and overflowing trash; vermin and cockroach infestations; and lack of specific safety precautions.  (Complaint ¶¶ 22-26.)

These facts, if proven, would support a finding of oppression or malice.

The motion to strike is DENIED.

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 December 2024

 

 

 

 

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court