Case Name:   Naumov v. Spieker Companies, et al.

Case No.:       1-14-CV-266239

Defendants Spieker Companies, Inc., California Pacific Commercial Corp., Richard T. Spieker, Catherine Speaker, G. Wayne Adair, and Rebecca Ferguson (collectively, “Defendants”) move to strike portions of the Complaint of plaintiffs Arsenii Naumov and Egor Naumov (collectively, “Plaintiffs”).  Specifically, Defendants seek to have the Court strike allegations regarding punitive damages and attorney’s fees.

Generally, punitive damages are recoverable where the defendant is guilty of malice, oppression or fraud.  (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).)  Defendants argue that the Complaint only has conclusory, non-specific assertions that should be disregarded in determining whether Plaintiffs have pleaded sufficient facts to obtain punitive damages.  Defendants contend that the only facts alleged to have put Defendants on notice of a dangerous condition at the subject property relate to an incident at an entirely different property.

Plaintiffs allege that on June 6, 2012, Arsenii Naumov, who was 3 years of age, was a tenant at the Regency Apartments.  (Complaint, GN-1, ¶ 2.)  On this date Arsenii Naumov fell three stories from an unsecured and unreasonably dangerous window of the apartment suffering severe injuries.  (Ibid.)  Defendants were aware that the window in question was dangerous because prior to Arsenii Naumov’s fall two other people had fallen out of the same or similar windows, and maintenance employee Lon Bretwon had warned management, including manager Rebecca Ferguson, that the windows were dangerous and did not comply with the building codes.  (Complaint, EX-2.)  When Lon Bretwon gave Rebecca Ferguson a report regarding the windows, Ferguson said the report was critical of the company and unacceptable and then crumpled up the report and threw it in the trash.  (Complaint, GN-1, ¶ 5.)  Bretwon was fired shortly thereafter.  (Ibid.)  During a different personal injury lawsuit, the dangerousness of the windows in question was fully litigated, Ferguson, Wayne Adair, and Richard Spieker each had their depositions taken in that action.  (Ibid.)  Despite being aware of the dangerous condition of the windows, Defendants decided to install the windows without safety bars in the apartment unit occupied by the Naumov family.  (Complaint, EX-2.)

The above allegations are sufficient for pleading purposes to show a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others and can support a claim for punitive damages.

With regard to the attorney’s fees allegations, Plaintiffs point out that they are not seeking attorney’s fees and that there are no allegations in the Complaint requesting attorney’s fees.

Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, Defendants’ motion is DENIED.