Case Name: Guzman, et al. v. Estrada, et al.
Case No.: 1-14-CV-265255
Defendants John Estrada and Mary Estrada (collectively, “Defendants”) demur to the complaint (“Complaint”) filed by plaintiffs Ampelium Guzman (“Ampelium”) and Viola Guzman (collectively, “Plaintiffs”).
Defendants are the owners of a property located at 320 E. San Martin Ave., San Martin (the “Property”). (Complaint at ¶ 3.) On June 23, 2008, Plaintiffs entered into a month to month lease agreement with Defendants whereby Plaintiffs agreed to rent a mobile home located on the Property for $950 per month. (Id. at ¶ 6 and Exhibit 1.) Prior to moving in, the parties agreed that as payment for the first month’s rent, Ampelium would make various necessary repairs to the mobile home. (Id. at ¶ 10.) Plaintiffs ultimately took possession of the mobile home in September 2008. (Id. at ¶ 11.)
After Plaintiffs moved in, they became aware of numerous other problems with the mobile home that had not been disclosed to them, including a broken water heater, broken portions of the stove and broken electrical switches. (Complaint at ¶ 12.) Ampelium bought materials and repaired the problems. (Id. at ¶ 13.) Despite promising to do so, Defendants never paid Ampelium for the supplies or his labor to make the repairs. (Id.) Plaintiffs were without hot water for six months, during which time Defendants continued to collect rent from them. (Id. at ¶ 14.)
Plaintiffs also experienced problems with the mobile home’s septic tank. (Complaint at ¶ 15.) At Defendants’ direction, Ampelium purchased the materials for and built a new septic tank system. (Id.) Ampelium was never paid for his work or the materials. (Id.) As a result of expending funds on the septic tank repair, Plaintiffs could not pay rent to Defendants. (Complaint at ¶ 16.) Defendants refused to credit the repairs to the rent and instead told Plaintiffs to move out of the mobile home and into another structure on the Property, the “Rear Cottage.” (Id.) At the time they moved in to it, the Rear Cottage lacked a floor, running water and a bathroom. (Id. at ¶ 17.) Plaintiffs unwillingly moved in based on their fear that Defendants would evict them form the Property as they had threatened to do. (Id.)
Plaintiffs made numerous renovations to make the Rear Cottage more livable. (Complaint at ¶ 18.) After observing the changes Plaintiffs had made, Defendants demanded that Plaintiffs pay rent in the amount of $550 per month. (Id. at ¶ 19.) Plaintiffs acquiesced, desperate for a place to live and having invested a significant amount of money into renovating the Rear Cottage. (Id.) Defendants continued to collect rent for the Rear Cottage from April 2008 until March 2014, despite the structure lacking proper ventilation, electrical outlets and other issues. (Id.) Plaintiffs unsuccessfully challenged additional charges levied by Defendants for the unit, with Defendants threatening to have Plaintiffs arrested. (Id. at ¶ 20.)
On April 8, 2014, after Plaintiffs refused to pay additional electrical fees, Defendants served them with a 60-Day Notice to Terminate Tenancy. (Complaint at ¶ 21 and Exhibit 2.) On April 14, 2014, Defendants served Plaintiffs with a 60-Day Notice to Quit. (Id.)
On May 13, 2014, Plaintiffs filed the Complaint assert the following causes of action: (1) nuisance; (2) negligence; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (4) negligent infliction of emotional distress; (5) failure to maintain habitable conditions under Civil Code § 1941; (6) fraud and deceit; (7) unlawful conduct by landlord in violation of Civil Code § 1940.2; (8) retaliatory eviction in violation of Civil Code § 1942.5, subd. (c); and (9) elder abuse.
On June 12, 2014, Defendants filed the instant demurrer to the first, fourth, sixth and ninth causes of action on the ground of failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and to the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, seventh and eighth causes of action on the ground of uncertainty. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subds. (e) and (f).)
Defendants’ demurrer to the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, seventh and eighth causes of action on the ground of uncertainty is SUSTAINED WITH 10 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND. While a demurrer for uncertainty is usually disfavored, Plaintiffs’ general references to the “Subject Premises” and the “Premises” make it unclear whether Plaintiffs are referring to the mobile home or to the Rear Cottage or both, especially given the fact that there are allegations as to one or both structures over a period of six years.
Defendants’ demurrer to the first cause of action (nuisance) on the ground of failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action is OVERRULED. “A nuisance is broadly defined as ‘[a]nything which is injurious to health, or is indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property …’ (Civ. Code, § 3479.)” (Koll-Irvine Center Property Owners Assn. v. County of Orange (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1040.) A nuisance may be public, private, or both. (Id.) “The essence of a private nuisance is an interference with the use and enjoyment of land.” (Friends of H Street v. City of Sacramento (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 152, 160.) To be actionable, any such interference must be objectively substantial and unreasonable. (Koll-Irvine Center, supra, at 1041.)
Here, Plaintiffs have pleaded a substantial and unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of land in alleging, among other things, that they were deprived of hot water, a proper septic tank and flooring while residing on the Property in the Rear Cottage and the mobile home. (Complaint at ¶¶ 14, 15 and 17.)
Defendants’ demurrer to the fourth cause of action (negligent infliction of emotional distress) on the ground of failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Under California law, there is no independent tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress. (See Delfino v. Agilent Technologies, Inc. (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 790, 818.)
Defendants’ demurrer to the sixth cause of action (fraud and deceit) on the ground of failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action is OVERRULED. Contrary to Defendants’ assertion, in pleading that Defendants concealed and falsely represented facts regarding the habitability of the mobile home with the intent to induce them to enter into an agreement to rent it, Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded the element of intent to defraud/deceive. (See 5 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Pleading, § 729, p. 147 [“it is obvious that an intent to induce the plaintiff to act in a particular way on false representations is an intent to deceive the plaintiff”].)
Defendants’ demurrer to the ninth cause of action (elder abuse) on the ground of failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action is SUSTAINED WITH 10 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND. To the extent that Plaintiffs are attempting to state a claim for elder abuse under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15610.07, subdivision (a), they fail to plead conduct on the part of Defendants that amounts to “physical abuse, neglect, financial abuse, abandonment, isolation, abduction, or other treatment with resulting physical harm or pain or mental suffering.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15610.07, subd. (a).)
Link to this page