Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 23STCV11733, Date: 2023-10-18 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV11733 Hearing Date: February 15, 2024 Dept: 51
Tentative Ruling
Judge Upinder S.
Kalra, Department 51
HEARING DATE: February
15, 2024
CASE NAME: Janelle
Ralla v. Grand Harbor Property Management, Inc., et al.
CASE NO.: 23STCV11733
MOTION
TO STRIKE
MOVING PARTY: Defendants
Grand Harbor Property Management, Inc., Damon Whitsitt and Lisa Whitsitt as
Trustees of the 2011 Damon Whitsitt and Lisa Whitsitt Revocable Trust
RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Janelle Ralla
REQUESTED RELIEF:
1. An
Order striking the Request for Relief, Request 3, line 27: “Punitive damages in
amounts according to proof;”
TENTATIVE RULING:
1. Motion
to Strike is DENIED.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
Plaintiff Janelle Ralla (Plaintiff) filed a complaint on
May 24, 2023 with three causes of action for: (1) Breach of Warranty of
Habitability; (2) Nuisance; and (3) Violation of Unfair Competition Law.
The complaint alleges that Plaintiff moved to a property
owned by Defendants located at 2801 Alma Ave., Manhattan Beach, California
90266 (the Property) on February 23, 2023. Plaintiff alleges she notified
Defendants of significant water intrusion and leaking in the upstairs portion
of the Property as well as mold. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ lack of
repair allowed additional water intrusion and mold growth throughout the
Property. Plaintiff alleges Defendants’ remediation efforts were insufficient, that
Defendants failed to continue remediation efforts, and failed to provide
adequate substitute accommodations. Plaintiff alleges that she moved out on
April 18, 2023.
Defendants Grand Harbor Property Management, Inc., Damon
Whitsitt and Lisa Whitsitt as Trustees of the 2011 Damon Whitsitt and Lisa
Whitsitt Revocable Trust (Defendants) timely filed the instant demurrer and
motion to strike on August 7, 2023.
On October 18, 2023, the court OVERRULED Defendants’
demurrer as to the first cause of action, SUSTAINED the demurrer as to the
second cause of action with leave to amend and GRANTED Defendants’ motion to
strike with leave to amend.
On November 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint (FAC).
On December 5, 2023, Defendants filed a Motion to Strike
portions of the FAC. On February 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On
February 7, 2024, Defendants filed a reply.
LEGAL STANDARD:
Meet and Confer
Prior to filing a demurrer, the demurring party is required
to satisfy their meet and confer obligations pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc.
(CCP) §430.41 and demonstrate that they so satisfied their meet and confer
obligation by submitting a declaration pursuant to CCP §430.41(a)(2) &
(3).¿The meet and confer requirement also applies to motions to strike. (CCP §
435.5.) Here, the meet and confer requirement was
not met. (Volcy Decl. ¶ 3.) Still, failure to meet and confer is not a
sufficient ground to overrule or sustain a demurrer. (CCP § 430.41(a)(4).)
Motion to Strike
The court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its
discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or
improper matter inserted in any pleading. (CCP § 436(a).) The court may also
strike all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with
the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Id., § 436(b).) The grounds for moving
to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice.
(Id.¿§¿437.)¿“When the defect which
justifies striking a complaint is capable of cure, the court should allow leave
to amend.” (Vaccaro v. Kaiman¿(1998)
63 Cal.App.4th 761, 768.)
Request for
Judicial Notice
The court grants
Defendants’ request for judicial notice as to Exhibits A and B. (Evid. Code §
452(g), (h); See Kalnoki v. First
American Trustee Servicing Solutions, LLC (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 23,37.)
However, the court only takes judicial notice of the foregoing documents only
as to “the existence, content and authenticity of public records and other
specified documents”; it does not take judicial notice of the truth of the
factual matters asserted in those documents. (Dominguez v. Bonta (2022) 87 Cal. App. 5th 389, 400.)¿¿
ANALYSIS:
Punitive Damages
Defendant contends that Plaintiff failed to plead
sufficient facts that Defendants are guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice by
clear and convincing evidence. Plaintiff argues
that she has sufficiently pled facts supporting a claim for punitive damages.
Defendants reply that the FAC alleges, at most, negligent misrepresentation
which does not warrant punitive damages.
To obtain
punitive damages, a plaintiff must plead sufficient facts in support of
punitive damages.¿ (See¿Hilliard v. A.H.
Robins Co.¿(1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 374, 391-92.)¿ In addition,¿punitive
damages are allowed only where “it is proven by clear and convincing evidence
that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.”¿ (Civ.
Code, § 3294(a).)¿ Courts have viewed despicable conduct as conduct “so vile,
base, contemptible, miserable, wretched or loathsome that it would be looked
down upon and despised by ordinary decent people. (Scott v. Phoenix Schools, Inc., (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 702, 715.)
Further, Civil Code § 3294(c) provides the definition of malice, oppression,
and fraud. Malice is “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.” (Ibid.) Oppression is
“despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in
conscious disregard of that person's rights.” (Ibid.) Fraud is “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.”¿(Ibid.)
After reviewing
the FAC, Plaintiff has sufficiently pled facts to warrant punitive damages
against Defendants. First, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants had actual
knowledge of the defective condition because she notified them upon moving in
and on March 2, 2023; that Defendants sent technicians to confirm the mold and
place fans. (FAC ¶¶ 12, 13, 14, and 15.) Plaintiff additionally alleges that
she told Defendants, via their agent, before entering the lease that she had
prior bad experience with water and mold issues and wanted to make sure that
there were no such problems at the premises before signing the lease. (FAC ¶¶ 20,
21.) Finally, Plaintiff alleges that after she moved in and noticed the water
and mold problems that Defendants, through their agent, confirmed that the
premises does leak when it rained heavily. (FAC ¶¶ 22, 23.) In Stoiber
v. Honeychuck, the premises was so dilapidated that it needed to be torn
down. ((1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 903, 912 [describing the following defects identified
by the Kern County health Department: “heavy cockroach infestation, broken
interior walls broken deteriorated flooring on front porch, falling ceiling,
deteriorated, overfused electrical wiring, lack of proper plumbing connection
to sewage system in bathroom, sewage under bathroom floor, leaking roof,
broken, windows, and fire hazard.”]) The Court there found that the plaintiff
pled sufficient facts to support her prayer for punitive damages because the
defendant had actual knowledge of defective conditions in the premises, acted
with full knowledge of the consequences thereof and the damage being caused to
plaintiff, and their conduct was willful, oppressive, and malicious. (Id. at p. 920.) Here, as in Stoiber, Plaintiff alleged that
Defendants had actual knowledge of the defects, that the defects were causing
Plaintiff damages, and that Defendants’ conduct was willful, oppressive, and
malicious. (FAC ¶¶ 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44.) Moreover, Plaintiff has alleged
that Defendants’ intentionally withheld a material fact, namely, that the
premises leaked. (FAC ¶ 23.)
Accordingly,
the court DENIES Defendants’ motion to strike the prayer for punitive damages.
CONCLUSION:
For
the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:
2. Motion
to Strike is DENIED.
Moving party is to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 15, 2024 __________________________________ Upinder
S. Kalra
Judge
of the Superior Court