Case Number: 19STCV23031 Hearing Date: March 02, 2020 Dept: 74

19STCV23031 BEATRIZ SANDOVAL vs RAMANDEEP SINGH

Defendant Remandeep Singh’s Demurrer and Motion to Strike Portions of the Complaint

TENTATIVE RULING: The demurrer is sustained as to the first, second, third, fourth, sixth, and seventh, eleventh, thirteenth and fourteenth causes of action. The remainder of the demurrer is overruled. The motion to strike portions of the complaint is denied. Plaintiffs are to file an amended complaint within 20 days. The Case Management Conference is continued from March 5, 2020 to April 16, 2020. Moving party to give notice.

Landlord-Tenant Relationship

The complaint alleges the property was owned during the relevant time by Hira Anand, LLC, 2011-2019, and 7036 Soto Apartments, LLC since 2019. It alleges that this defendant, Ramandeep Sighn, held himself out as the owner. There are allegations that HCIDLA issued notice to Hira Anand and Ramandeep Singh.

Where there is any inconsistency between the specific allegations upon which a conclusion must be based and the conclusion, the specific allegations control. (Careau & Co. v. Sec. Pac. Bus. Credit (1990) 222 Cal. App. 3d 1371, 1390.) “Inconsistent general statements are modified and limited by specific factual allegations.” (Cansino v. Bank of Amer. (2014) 224 Cal. App. 4th 1462, 1468.) “ ‘[I]t is possible that specific allegations will render a complaint defective when the general allegations, standing alone, might have been sufficient.’ ” (Ferrick v. Santa Clara Univ. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1352.)

The complaint specifically alleges that during the entire relevant period of the complaint, ownership of the property was held by Hira Anand and 7036 Soto Apartments. It was not held by Ramandeep Signh.

The demurrer is sustained as to the first, second, third, fourth, sixth, and seventh, eleventh, thirteenth and fourteenth causes of action. Leave to amend is granted as plaintiffs may have facts which would establish a basis of liability against Ramandeep Signh.

Fifth Cause of Action for Nuisance

Ownership of a property is not necessary for liability for a nuisance. The cause of action alleges that defendants causes the uninhabitable conditions, which created the nuisance.

A demurrer should not be sustained on the ground of uncertainty regarding which defendant committed the alleged conduct, where the pleading alleged that all defendants were responsible. (Dillard v. County of Kern (1943) 23 Cal. 2d 271, 279.) Alleging conduct of defendants and each of them was sufficient to charge each with liability. (Lee v. Escrow Consultants, Inc. (1989) 210 Cal. App. 3d 915, 925.)

This is a sufficient pleading against all defendants.

Seventh Cause of Action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

This cause of action alleges that defendants failed to abate the unsafe conditions in the building, abused and disparaged the tenants and abused their position of power over the tenants, which is sufficient to support a finding of outrageous conduct aimed at plaintiffs. The complaint alleges that plaintiffs suffered extreme emotional distress, including anxiety, annoyance and discomfort.

Eighth Cause of Action for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

This cause of action alleges that defendants were aware of the uninhabitable conditions and that their failure to repair the conditions would require plaintiffs to live in those conditions. The complaint also alleges that Ramandeep Singh was specifically named on citations from City agencies, requiring him to remedy the conditions. The cause of action alleges defendants, including Ramandeep Singh, knew or should have known plaintiffs would have difficulty in obtaining alternate housing, and that plaintiffs suffered severe emotional distress.

Ninth Cause of Action for Premises Liability and Tenth Cause of Action for Negligence

Ramandeep Singh argues that these causes of action fail because, as a non-owner, he had no duty to plaintiffs. At least some of citations requiring remediation of conditions named him personally as responsible for the remediation. This is a sufficient allegation of duty.

Twelfth Cause of Action for Invasion of Privacy and Fifteenth Cause of Action for Trespass

Neither of these causes of action requires a defendant to be the owner of property. The allegations are that defendants, including this defendant, entered plaintiffs’ property without notice or permission.

Motion to Strike Portions of the Complaint

The demurrer to the third cause of action for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment was sustained with leave to amend. The motion is moot as to that cause of action.

Defendant moves to strike punitive damages from the complaint. The allegations that defendant Ramandeep Singh refused to make repairs to the property, leaving it in an uninhabitable and unsafe condition, knowing that plaintiffs were low-income and unlikely to find alternate housing, and verbally abused and disparaged them, is sufficient to support punitive damages.