2013-00147053-CU-BC

Sondra Madden vs. Leatha Henderson

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Strike

Filed By: Rolfe, Craig J.
Defendant Leatha Henderson’s motion to strike punitive damages allegations in
Plaintiffs Sondra and Dale Madden’s complaint is granted without leave to amend in
part and denied in part as set forth below.

Defendant’s request for judicial notice of Plaintiffs’ complaint is granted.

First Cause of Action (Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability)

The motion to strike punitive damages in connection with the first cause of action is
granted without leave to amend. Defendant argues that because the implied warranty
of habitability is contained in a lease, punitive damages are unavailable given punitive
damages are unavailable for contract actions. While Plaintiffs argue otherwise, the
authority cited does not support their argument and only states that punitive damages
may be recovered in a landlord-tenant action in connection with a nuisance cause of
action alleging that the conditions of the leased premises constitute a nuisance, even
though there a contractual relationship exists between the landlord and tenant. (
Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 1010 Cal.App.3d 903, 920.) In Stoiber, the court
concluded that the plaintiff had pleaded sufficient facts to support her claim for
exemplary damages where she alleged “that defendant had actual knowledge of
defective conditions in the premises including leaking sewage, deteriorated flooring,
falling ceiling, leaking roof, broken windows, and other unsafe and dangerous
conditions…[and] also alleged that defendants ‘In maintaining said nuisance,…acted
with full knowledge of the consequences thereof and the damage being caused to
plaintiff, and their conduct was willful, oppressive and malicious.’”

Plaintiffs cite no authority for the proposition that punitive damages may be recovered
in connection with a breach of implied warranty cause of action which at its core is a
contract based cause of action. As a result, the motion to strike punitive damages in
connection with this cause of action is granted. Leave to amend is not given as no
amendment could cure the legal defect.

The Court need not reach the other arguments in support of the motion to strike in
connection with this cause of action.

Second Cause of Action (Breach of Contractual Warranty of Habitability)

The motion to strike punitive damages in connection with the second cause of action is
granted without leave to amend. This cause of action is based solely on the contract
between the parties and as such, punitive damages cannot be recovered. (Civ. Code
§ 3294(a).)

Third Cause of Action (Violation of Civil Code § 1942.4)

The motion to strike punitive damages in connection with the third cause of action is
granted without leave to amend. Civil Code § 1942.4 provides that a landlord is liable
to a tenant for actual damages sustained and special damages of not more than
$5,000 when the landlord demands or collects rent where the premises does not meet
specified standards. It also entitles the prevailing party to attorneys’ fees, but does not
provide for exemplary damages.

Fourth Cause of Action (Breach of Contract) The motion to strike punitive damages in connection with the fourth cause of action is
granted without leave to amend. Punitive damages are not recoverable for a breach of
contract. (Civ. Code § 3294(a).)

Fifth Cause of Action (Breach of Quiet Enjoyment-Civil Code § 1927)

The motion to strike punitive damages in connection with the fifth cause of action is
granted without leave to amend. Again, this cause of action relies entirely on the lease
between the parties and thus is a contract based cause of action for which punitive
damages cannot be recovered. (Civ. Code § 3294(a).)

Sixth Cause of Action (Private Nuisance)

The motion to strike punitive damages in connection with the sixth cause of action is
denied. As seen from relevant authorities, the existence of a contractual relationship
between a landlord and tenant does not preclude the tenant from asserting a nuisance
cause of action pursuant to which the tenant seeks punitive damages. (Stoiber, supra,
101 Cal.App.3d at 920.) “Nuisance liability is not precluded by the existence of a
contractual relationship between the tenant and landlord. It is hornbook law that an act
that constitutes a breach of contract may also be tortious. [citation omitted.] “A
nuisance may be either a negligent or an intentional tort. If the latter, then exemplary
damages are recoverable.” (Id., at 920-921.) Here, the contractual relationship
between Plaintiff and Defendant does not preclude Plaintiffs from seeking punitive
damages in connection with the nuisance cause of action, which nuisance Plaintiffs
alleged was intentional. Further, the Court finds that contrary to Defendant’s
argument, Plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts to support punitive damages as they
alleged that Defendant knew there were substantial defects at the subject home and
that Defendant refused to repair the defects despite such knowledge. (Comp. ¶¶ 11,
12, 14, 47, 48, 50.) Plaintiffs also alleged Defendant retaliated against after they
demanded needed repairs, contacted agencies regarding the repairs, and lawfully
withheld rent by, among other things, harassing and intimidating them, and serving a
notice to quit. (Comp. ¶¶ 15, 16, 47.) These allegations are adequate at the pleading
stage to assert a claim for punitive damages. (Civ. Code § 3294(a).) Indeed,
allegations that Defendant acted with the retaliatory motive in harassing and
intimidating Plaintiffs and serving a notice to quit would be sufficient if proven at trial to
demonstrate malice. (E.g., Perkins v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 1, 6-7
[allegations a defendant retaliated against a plaintiff in shutting off home phone service
would be sufficient, if proven at trial, to show malice].) The motion to strike punitive
damages in connection with the sixth cause of action is denied.

Seventh Cause of Action (Premises Liability-Civil Code § 1714)

The motion to strike punitive damages in connection with the seventh cause of action
is denied. Defendant recognizes the availability of punitive damages but argues that
Plaintiffs alleged nothing more than negligent conduct. The Court disagrees. As
already discussed above, in connection with the sixth cause of action, Plaintiffs
adequately alleged a factual basis for punitive damages. The motion is therefore
denied.

Eighth Cause of Action (Premises Liability-Civil Code § 1942.5(c)) The motion to strike punitive damages is denied for the same reason it was denied
above in connection with the sixth and seventh causes of action.

Tenth Cause of Action (Unfair Business Practices)

The motion to strike punitive damages is sustained without leave to amend. Punitive
damages are not recoverable in connection with a cause of action for unfair business
th
practices. (Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 Cal.4 1134, 1148.)

Eleventh Cause of Action (Retaliatory Eviction)

The motion to strike punitive damages is denied. Contrary to Defendant’s argument,
as discussed above, the Court found that Plaintiffs alleged facts sufficient to
demonstrate a claim for punitive damages.

Claim for Exemplary Damages and Prayer for Relief

The motion to strike is denied as Plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts to state a claim for
punitive damages, at least in connection with the sixth, seventh, eighth, and eleventh
causes of action.

The motion to strike is therefore granted without leave to amend as to the first through
fifth and tenth causes of action and denied as to the sixth through eighth and eleventh
causes of action.

While the notice of motion provides the notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as
required by CRC Rule 3.1308 and Local Rule 1.06(D), it provides the incorrect
department and time for the hearing. This matter has been assigned to Department 53
for law and motion purposes and the hearing is in Department 53 at 2 p.m.
Defendant’s counsel is ordered to notify Plaintiffs’ counsel immediately of the correct
department and time of the hearing.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule
3.1312 or other further notice is required.