Case Number: 19SMCV00933 Hearing Date: February 06, 2020 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Lamitra Goss et al. v. R3 Lofts et al. Case No. 19SMCV00933

Hearing Date: February 6, 2020

Demurrer to and Motion to Strike Portions of Second Amended Complaint

Plaintiffs leased residential real property from defendants, alleging the units they rented constituted illegal construction. Plaintiffs vacated after defendants received a notice and order to comply from the Los Angeles Housing and Community Investment Department (HCID). Plaintiffs allege a variety of torts and statutory violations by accepting rent and deceiving them into believing they were renting lawful and permitted units. Defendants demur to all ten causes of action in the second amended complaint (SAC).

Uncertainty

Defendants argue plaintiffs do not clarify which causes of action are pleaded by which plaintiff and against which defendant. Each cause of action is alleged by every plaintiff against every defendant. Defendants argue plaintiffs fail to identify which specific units are illegal. The SAC identifies the unit occupied by each plaintiff and alleges all were illegal. For purposes of pleading, the court accepts the allegations made.

Breach of Civ. Code §1942.4

Pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code §1942.4, a landlord may not collect rent for a dwelling that “lacks any of the affirmative standard characteristics listed in Section 1941.1 or violates section 17920.10 of the Health and Safety Code,” if the landlord has received notice of the condition and does not abate the condition within 35 days.

This cause of action is based on the May 1, 2019 letter from the HCID. Civil Code §1942.4 required defendants to fix identified conditions by June 5, 2019 or stop collecting rent. Defendant demurs that the LAHCID notice does not identify any statutory violations set forth in §1942.2, and there is no allegation that defendants improperly requested or accepted rent after June 5, 2019. Civil Code §1941.1 states a habitable dwelling must have waterproofing, working plumbing and water supply, working heating facilities, electrical lighting, clean grounds, garbage receptacles, a locking mail receptacle, and well-maintained floors, stairways, and railings. Health and Safety Code §17920.10 relates to lead hazards, while §17920.3 includes a long list of substandard conditions. The HCID report identifies some conditions that could be covered by one or more of the above statutes, but the complaint does not specifically identify which applies. Additionally, the SAC does not affirmatively state defendants accepted or requested rent improperly under §1942.4. Plaintiffs’ opposition provides no argument as to this cause of action. SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

Cal. Gov’t. Code §66499.30

Cal Gov. Code §66412 (a) states “[t]his division shall be inapplicable to . . . [t]he financing or leasing of apartments[.]” §66499.30 falls within that division, so is inapplicable to apartments, as here. SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

§17200 (Third and Fourth Causes of Action)

The SAC vaguely alleges defendants violated California statutory law and engaged in conduct “likely to deceive,” but does not clarify the acts constituting the alleged violations. Additionally, the complaint is unclear as to how the unfair competition caused plaintiffs direct economic harm. SUSTAINED with ten days leave to amend.

Covenant of Habitability

The HCID notice and order to comply attached to the SAC states units 405, 410, 205, 310, and 204, where plaintiffs lived, are illegal construction. Plaintiffs’ Exh. A at pgs. 2-4. The notice does not distinguish between “A” units and “B” units and assigned a severity level of “high” to all identified units. The construction included “unapproved alterations to overcurrent protection and fire safety,” as well as partitions that created four sleeping rooms “without direct access to the emergency egress window/door.” Each alleged violation implicates tenant safety and could give rise to a breach of the implied warranty of habitability. The notice also identifies violations related to fire safety, electricity, and plumbing throughout the entire building. Exh. A at pgs. 4-6. These alleged violations are sufficient for pleading purposes. OVERRULED.

Fraud

Defendants argue the fraud claims are not pled with sufficient particularity. The basis of these claims is that defendants wrongfully led plaintiffs to believe the units they rented were legal and properly permitted. SAC at ¶¶75 – 79, 83-85. The SAC alleges defendants’ leasing agent made representations constituting fraud (SAC at ¶75), but does not identify when, where, or by what means (s)he made the representations. Fraud has not been pleaded with sufficient particularity. SUSTAINED with ten days leave to amend as to the sixth and seventh causes of action.

Negligence

Defendants argue plaintiffs have not alleged actual injury, and only the “B” units were illegal. The HCID report stated units 204, 205, 310, 405, and 410 all contained illegal construction, making no distinction between “A” and “B” units. Plaintiffs’ Exh. A at pgs. 2-4. Further, plaintiffs alleged damages by paying rent for units with an actual value of $0, from which they were ultimately evicted due to illegal construction. OVERRULED.

NIED

The demurrer is based on the same argument used to support the demurrer to the negligence cause of action and fails for the same reasons. OVERRULED.

Quiet Enjoyment

The demurrer is based on the same arguments used to support the demurrer to the warranty of habitability claim and fails for the same reasons. OVERRULED.

Motion to Strike Punitive Damages
As explained above, plaintiffs fail to allege fraud with sufficient particularity. None of the conduct alleged in the remainder of the SAC rises to the level of malice or oppression. GRANTED with ten days leave to amend to adequately allege malice, fraud, or o [lawzilla note: sic tentative ruling cuts off here]