Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 22STCV29845, Date: 2023-04-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV29845    Hearing Date: April 27, 2023    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Termeforoosh et al. v. Levine et al., Case No. 22STCV29845

Hearing Date April 27, 2023

Defendants’ Demurrer to First Amended Complaint

Plaintiff tenants Ron, Salina and Farnoush Termeforoosh allege habitability claims against defendant landlords, resulting in constructive eviction. Landlords demur to the first amended complaint.

Uncertainty

Samek and Bilanc argue the FAC is unclear as to whether they are included in the eighth through tenth causes of action. They are not named in any of these causes of action, so the claims are not targeted at them. OVERRULED.

Breach of Contract

When deciding a demurrer, the court should view the complaint with a liberal construction and raise any reasonable inferences from its text. Del. E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593.

Tenants allege landlords breached the lease agreement due to habitability issues and threats to evict for nonpayment. FAC ¶¶39-41. Landlords argue the complaint does not allege dates the action or inaction occurred, and the FAC is uncertain as to whether the attached lease was operative at the time of breach or whether it terminated in 2017.

There is no legal requirement for a plaintiff alleging breach of contract to state the specific date the alleged breach occurred. The acts and omissions are stated with sufficient particularity. While the lease terminated January 2017, it appears that by 2022, when the leak occurred, the lease had converted to month-to-month under §2(b). OVERRULED.

Breach of Implied Warranties and Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

Landlords allege tenants do not allege sufficient facts showing how the unit was uninhabitable or how conditions interfered with tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment. The FAC alleges tenants suffered a water leak, causing damage to personal property and forcing them to vacate. FAC ¶¶20-21. This is sufficient at the pleading stage. OVERRULED.

Constructive Eviction

Landlords argue tenants do not allege enough supporting facts. Tenants allege landlords failed to repair a leak, forcing them to relocate. FAC at ¶6. This is sufficient to set forth a claim for constructive eviction. The landlords argue the FAC is unclear as to whether the attached lease was operative at relevant times. As above, the court infers that the lease attached to the FAC converted to a month-to-month tenancy by 2022. OVERRULED.

Retaliatory Acts

Landlords again lack of sufficient facts. It is not clear what conduct in the FAC are alleged to constitute “acts of harassment and intimidation.” FAC ¶66. The retaliation claim must be clarified. SUSTAINED with ten days leave to amend.

Negligence

Landlords argue this cause of action has insufficient factual support. The FAC states landlords breached their duty of care by allowing a leak to develop in tenants’ bathroom and failing to repair it. FAC at ¶¶88-90. These allegations are sufficient at the pleading stage. OVERRULED.

Motion to Strike Punitive Damages

All claims are based on allegations that landlords allowed a leak to develop in tenants’ bathroom, forcing them to vacate. Although these allegations are sufficiently specific to support most of the claims in the FAC, they are too vague to support a request for punitive damages. Tenants must provide more facts indicating fraud, malice, or oppression. GRANTED with ten days leave to amend.

Attorney’s Fees

Landlords move to strike the request for attorney’s fees on the grounds that there is no statutory or contractual basis for their recovery in this case. Tenants specifically state they seek attorney’s fees under the terms of landlords’ HOA CCRs. FAC ¶33. DENIED.