Case Number: 19STCV09120 Hearing Date: December 10, 2019 Dept: A

# 5. Angelica Guerrero, et al. v. Eastside Village, LLP, et al.

Case No.: 19STCV09120

Matter on calendar for: Motion to Strike

Tentative ruling:

Background

This action involves alleged breaches of the warranty of habitability, retaliatory conduct, and harassment. Plaintiffs Angelica Guerroro, Angelica Uriquidez, and Eduardo Armenta allege Defendants Eastside Village, LP, Jessica Garcia, and Frances Williams improperly maintained and operated the premises at 2250 East 111th St., Apt. 220, Los Angeles. Defendants Jessica Garcia and Frances Williams are residents of the apartment complex who allegedly invaded Plaintiffs’ unit and committed robbery.

The Complaint alleges the following causes of action:

Retaliation and Harassment;

Discriminatory Housing Practices;

Negligence (Civ. Code §§ 1171(a), 3333);

Breach of Warranty of Habitability;

Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment;

Nuisance (Civ. Code § 3479);

Assault and Battery; and

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.

Defendant Eastside Village, LP, now moves to strike punitive damage allegations from the Complaint. An opposition and reply have been filed and considered.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the motion in part.

Standard

Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading, may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part of the pleading. (C.C.P., § 435(b)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1322(b).) The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (C.C.P. § 437.) The court may, upon a motion or at any time in its discretion and upon terms it deems proper: (1) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) strike out all or any part of the pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of the court. (C.C.P., §§ 436(a)-(b); Stafford v. Schultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782 [“matter in a pleading which is not essential to the claim is surplusage; probative facts are surplusage and may be stricken out or disregarded”].)

Analysis

Retaliation under Civil Code § 1942.5

Civil Code § 1942.5 allows for the recovery of punitive damages pursuant to a retaliation claim when the defendant has been found guilty of fraud, oppression, or malice. This does not mean a party may automatically include a punitive damages claim, but that punitive damages are potentially recoverable. The standard of Civil Code § 3294 still applies.

Alleging Punitive Damages Under Civil Code § 3294

California Civil Code § 3294 allows for punitive damages against defendants if, by clear and convincing evidence, they have been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. (Civ. Code § 3294.) Malice means “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.” (Civ. Code § 3294(c)(1).) As the Court held in College Hospital v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 713, Civil Code, § 3294 was amended in 1987 to require that, where malice is based on a defendant’s conscious disregard of a plaintiff’s rights, the conduct must be both despicable and willful. The Court in College Hospital found that “despicable conduct refers to circumstances that are ‘base,’ ‘vile,’ or ‘contemptible’. [Citation.]” (Id. at 725.) “‘[I]ntent,’ in the law of torts, denotes not only those results the actor desires, but also those consequences which he knows are substantially certain to result from his conduct.” (Shroeder v. Auto Driveway Co. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 908, 922.)

To support punitive damages the complaint must “’allege ultimate facts of the defendant’s oppression, fraud, or malice.’ [Citation.]” (Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood Apartments (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1055.) The court in Perkins v. Superior Court noted that “’the distinction between conclusions of law and ultimate facts is not at all clear and involves at most a matter of degree’ [Citation.] . . . . What is important is that the complaint as a whole contain sufficient facts to apprise the defendant of the basis upon which the plaintiff is seeking relief. [Citations.]” ((1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 1, 6–7.)

Civil Code § 3294(b) governs employer liability for punitive damages based on the actions of an employee. The employer must have 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 or authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct for which the damages are awarded or was personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.” (Civ. Code, § 3294(b).)

Defendants Jessica Garcia and Frances Williams are residents of the apartment complex. Although Plaintiffs allege Garcia and Williams were the agents of Eastside, they fail to properly allege that Eastside authorized or ratified their conduct. The Complaint also alleges that Garcia and Williams conspired with the property manager, Danny Hampton, to assault and rob Plaintiffs. (Complaint ¶ 31.) However, this is conclusory and fails to show ratification of Hampton’s alleged conduct. Without additional factual allegations, the Complaint cannot support a claim for punitive damages. If additional facts are discovered, Plaintiffs may move for leave to amend.

Ruling

The motion is as follows: as identified in Defendant’s notice of motion, items 1–3 and 5–7 are struck. The second sentence of item 4 is struck. Plaintiffs have 20 days’ leave to amend. Any responsive pleading is due 20 days thereafter, or 25 if served by mail.

Next dates:

Notice: