Case Number: BC697222 Hearing Date: June 12, 2018 Dept: 73

6/12/18
Dept. 73
Rafael Ongkeko, Judge presiding

CLAUDIA R. JOHNSON, et al. v. MOISES SALDATE, et al. (BC697222)

Counsel for plaintiffs/opposing parties: Gerald Ohn; Shayne Heller LaChapelle (L.O. Ohn)
Counsel for defendants/moving parties: Stephen Ensberg; Julie Esposito (Ensberg, etc.)

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF COMPLAINT INCLUDING PRAYER FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES (filed 5/9/18)

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants’ motion to strike is DENIED. Defendants’ answer shall be filed and served no later than 6/22/18. The court will consider advancing the case management conference from 7/11/18 to this date if all parties agree.

Discussion

Factual and procedural background

Plaintiffs Claudia R. Johnson, Lawrence Johnson, Gilbert Hosea, and Gregory
Mayes sue their landlords Defendants Moises Saldate and Maria Saldate for the gross dereliction of their duty to provide Plaintiffs a habitable home and to comply with all statutory requirements governing the maintenance and hire of rental housing units.

On October 29, 2014, Plaintiffs entered an agreement with Defendants to lease 427 Reposo Street, San Jacinto, California 92582. Many defective conditions affecting the habitability of the property existed, including: lack of sanitary plumbing fixtures in bathrooms, water leaks, insect infestations, malfunctioning electrical system, damaged or deteriorated flooring, lack of running water, insufficient cooling/heating system, and building code / health and safety code violations. After Plaintiffs moved in, the leaks caused water intrusion into the property which resulted in a high quantity of toxic mold. Because the property also lacked sufficient insect control, Plaintiffs were repeatedly bitten.

On March 8, 2018, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against Defendants for:

C/A 1: Breach of the Implied Warranty of Habitability (p. 4)
C/A 2: Negligence (p. 6.)
C/A 3: Nuisance (p. 7)

On May 9, 2018, Defendants filed this motion to strike portions of the complaint pertaining to punitive damages: (1) paragraph 16, page 4, lines 6-9 & 11-12; [footnote 1 added to last page] and (2) the Prayer for Relief, No. 2 for “Punitive and exemplary damages.” On May 30, 2018, Plaintiff filed a timely opposition. A reply was due by June 5, 2018. As of June 11, 2018, none received.

Merits

Defendants argue the complaint does not plead facts sufficient to support Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages. In opposition, Plaintiffs argue Defendants ignore the specific allegations in the complaint where Plaintiffs describe the uninhabitable conditions they endured, including the numerous times Plaintiffs notified Defendants of defects/code violations and requested Defendants remediate the issues.

Code of Civil Procedure § 436 authorizes the Court to strike out “any irrelevant, false or improper matter inserted into any pleading” or “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.” Punitive damages are appropriate if the defendant’s acts are reprehensible, fraudulent or in blatant violation of law or policy. (American Airlines, Inc. v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1017.) A motion to strike punitive damages from a complaint is appropriate where the facts alleged are insufficient to warrant imposition of such damages. (See Turman v. Turning Point of Cent. California, Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 64.)

Here, reading the complaint as a whole, Plaintiffs allege facts sufficient to establish Defendants’ acts were reprehensible, fraudulent, or in blatant violation of public policy. Plaintiffs allege they repeatedly informed Defendants of the uninhabitable conditions (see Compl. ¶ 16) and, due to Defendants’ failure to remediate, Plaintiffs suffered injury to their physical health, shock to their nervous system, emotional distress, depression, anguish, fright, horror, nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, shock, humiliation, shame, mortification, indignity, embarrassment, apprehension, mental suffering, medical expenses, and inconvenience (Compl. ¶ 15). The allegations in Plaintiffs’ support punitive damages. Defendants’ motion to strike is DENIED.

Unless waived, notice of ruling by Plaintiffs.

Footnote 1: “The aforementioned acts of Defendants were done maliciously, oppressively, fraudulently, recklessly and with the intent to cause injury to or deprive Plaintiffs if their legal rights or with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights of Plaintiffs. Defendants’ conduct was despicable and subjected Plaintiffs to cruel and unjust hardship. . . . Defendants intentionally failed to disclose the presence of toxic mold in the Property to any plaintiff.”