Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Case Number: 24STCV04763, Date: 2024-07-03 Tentative Ruling

1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email the clerk at SMCdept51@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same email) and notify all other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you do not have access to the internet, you may call the clerk at (213) 633-0351.

If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear and argue the motion, and the Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling. Please note that the tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question which are not authorized by statute or Rule of Court.

2. For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its discretion.

3. DO NOT USE THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE RULING. The Court will not read or respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.

1. Defendant Edge Property’s Demurrer to the Sixth Cause of Action is OVERRULED;

On February 27, 2024, Plaintiff Albin Pracki (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against Defendants Edge Property Management, Inc. and Weerts Real Estate, Inc. (Defendants) with ten causes of action for: (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability / Tenantability (H&S Code 17920.3 et seq.), (3) Breach of Implied Warranty of Quiet Enjoyment (CCC Sec. 1927), (4) Negligence, (5) Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, (6) Private Nuisance, (7) Premises Liability, (8) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, (9) Violation of the Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq., and (10) Violation of Los Angeles Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance.

According to the Complaint, Plaintiff resided at 13630 Wyandotte St., Unit 310, Van Nuys, California 91405 (the Premises) which Defendants owned and operated. Plaintiff alleges Defendants knew Plaintiff resided at the Premises and was a contemplated tenant under the October 1, 2003 lease agreement with Plaintiff’s sister (the Lease). Plaintiff alleges Defendants failed to remediate poor conditions on the Premises that they knew about. Defendants allegedly refuse to recognize Plaintiff as a tenant under the Lease.

On April 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal as to Defendant Weerts Real Estate, Inc. only.

On April 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Amendment to Complaint to correct DOE 1 as Robert R. Mallicoat Charitable Trust.

On May 14, 2024, Defendant Edge Property Management, Inc. (Edge Property) filed the instant Demurrer with Motion to Strike.

On June 4, 2024, Defendant Robert R. Mallicoat Charitable Trust filed a Demurrer with Motion to Strike.[1]

On June 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed untimely oppositions. On June 26, 2024, Edge Property filed timely replies.

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.¿In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice.¿(Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.)¿“A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. …. The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.”¿(Hahn¿147 Cal.App.4th at 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.) Courts also consider exhibits attached to the complaint and incorporated by reference. (See Frantz v. Blackwell (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 91, 94 (Frantz).)¿¿

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.)¿

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, Edge Property attempted to meet and confer twice via email but did not receive a response. (Declaration of Stephanie S. Poli ¶ 2.) Still, inadequacy of the meet and confer process is not a sufficient ground to overrule or sustain a demurrer. (CCP § 430.41(a)(4).)

Defendant Edge Property Management, Inc. (Edge Property) contends that their demurrer should be sustained because Plaintiff’s Sixth Cause of Action for Private Nuisance is duplicative of his Fourth Cause of Action for Negligence. Edge Property relies on El Escorial Owners’ Assn. v. DLC Plastering, Inc. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1337 (El Escorial) for the proposition that Plaintiff cannot plead both negligence and private nuisance if the claims rely on the same facts and request the same monetary damages.[2] Plaintiff argues that there are separate facts alleged that support a claim for nuisance, but not negligence.[3]

A nuisance is defined as follows: “[a]nything which is injurious to health,¿including, but not limited to, the illegal sale of controlled substances,¿or is indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, or unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use, in the customary manner, of any navigable lake, or river, bay, stream, canal, or basin, or any public park,¿square, street, or highway, is a nuisance.” (Civ. Code, § 3479.)

Private “[n]uisance liability arises from violation of a duty to another that interferes with the free use and enjoyment of his or her property.” (Chee v. Amanda Goldt Property Management (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1360, 1373.) The elements of a private nuisance are: (1) “the plaintiff must prove an interference with his use and enjoyment of his property”; (2) “ ‘the invasion of the plaintiff’s interest in the use and enjoyment of the land [must be] substantial, i.e., that it cause[s] the plaintiff to suffer “substantial actual damage” ’ ”; and (3) “ ‘ “[t]he interference with the protected interest must not only be substantial, but it must also be unreasonable” [citation], i.e., it must be “of such a nature, duration, or amount as to constitute unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of the land.” ’ [Citation.]” (Mendez v. Rancho Valencia Resort Partners, LLC (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 248, 262-63.) Tenants may sue their landlords for a nuisance. (Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 903, 919.)

Here, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged facts supporting a claim for nuisance. Notably, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants harassed him as he “continued to report the habitability defects in the Premises” by issuing “over fifty (50) 24-hour notices to enter over a two-year period for inspections and maintenance where none is required or requested” and that these notices are “vague or overbroad times of entry, including some that state entry will occur over a week period or sometimes longer.” (FAC ¶ 23.) Defendant did not address this allegation in its demurrer. These actions support a claim for nuisance because it shows an interference with his use and enjoyment of his property, it is a substantial interference (over fifty intrusions over a two year period), and is unreasonable interference with Plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of the Premises because he did not request the inspections or maintenance and none was required. This alleged conduct is more than failing to timely remedy property damage or maintain the Premises in a habitable condition.

Accordingly, the court OVERRULES Edge Property’s demurrer to the sixth cause of action.

1. Paragraph 29, Page 6:17-18: “Defendant’s conduct in furtherance of this neglectful and retaliatory scheme warrants the imposition of punitive damages;” and

2. Prayer for Relief, Paragraph H, Page 15: “For punitive and exemplary damages according to statute and according to proof, and to be determined at trial.”

Edge Property contends that Plaintiff alleged negligence in maintaining the property which does not warrant punitive damages. Plaintiff argues they sufficiently alleged facts supporting 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.)¿

Here, Plaintiff sufficiently alleged facts supporting a claim for punitive damages. First, Cal. Civ. Code § 1942.5(h)(2) provides for punitive damages. This supports the Second and Third Causes of Action. Second, Plaintiff may seek punitive damages for his nuisance claim. 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.) Unlike in Stoiber, the nuisance claim here concerns Defendant’s alleged harassment of Plaintiff via excessive 24-hour notices to enter. (FAC ¶ 23.) Ordinary decent people would likely look down on a landlord posting unwarranted inspection and maintenance notices to harass a tenant for reporting habitability defects that impact his health. Such conduct is despicable and carried with a willful and conscious disregard of the Plaintiff’s rights.

3. Defendant Edge Property’s Demurrer to the Sixth Cause of Action is OVERRULED;

[1] These motions are substantively identical to the motions filed by Defendant Edge Property Management, Inc.

[2] El Escorial was determined at the trial stage, not the pleading stage.

[3] Plaintiff does not help the court by identifying those allegations.