Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 23STCV16337, Date: 2024-04-30 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV16337 Hearing Date: April 30, 2024 Dept: 34
SUBJECT: Demurrer to
Plaintiffs’ Complaint
Moving Party: Defendant
Long Beach Affordable Housing Coalition, Inc.
Resp. Party: Plaintiffs Territa Avon Calvin, Joshua Harris,
Jamari Harris, Jyptian Harris, and Jently Harris
SUBJECT: Motion to
Strike
Moving Party: Defendant
Long Beach Affordable Housing Coalition, Inc.
Resp. Party: Plaintiffs Territa Avon Calvin, Joshua Harris,
Jamari Harris, Jyptian Harris, and Jently Harris
The Demurrer is OVERRULED.
The Motion to Strike is DENIED.
BACKGROUND:
On July 12, 2023, Plaintiffs Territa Avon Calvin, Joshua Harris, Jamari
Harris, Jyptian Harris, and Jently Harris filed their Complaint against Long
Beach Affordable Housing Coalition, Inc. on causes of action arising from
Plaintiffs’ tenancy in Defendant’s rental unit.
On July 14, 2023, the Court appointed Plaintiff Territa Avon Calvin as
the guardian ad litem for Plaintiffs Jamari Harris, Jyptian Harris, and Jently
Harris.
On April 3, 2024, Defendant filed its Demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint
(“Demurrer”) and Motion to Strike Punitive Damages from Plaintiffs’ Complaint
(“Motion to Strike”). In support of each of these filings, Defendant
concurrently filed a Proposed Order.
On April 17, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their Oppositions to the Demurrer
and the Motion to Strike.
On April 23, 2024, Defendant filed its Replies in support of the
Demurrer and the Motion to Strike.
ANALYSIS:
I.
Demurrer
A.
Legal
Standard
“The party
against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed may object, by
demurrer or answer as provided in Section 430.30, to the pleading on any one or
more of” various grounds listed in statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10.)
“When any ground
for objection to a complaint, cross-complaint, or answer appears on the face
thereof, or from any matter of which the court is required to or may take
judicial notice, the objection on that ground may be taken by a demurrer to the
pleading.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (a).)
“A demurrer to a
complaint or cross-complaint may be taken to the whole complaint or
cross-complaint or to any of the causes of action stated therein.” (Code Civ.
Proc., § 430.50, subd. (a).)
“In reviewing the sufficiency
of a complaint against a general demurrer, we are guided by long-settled rules.
We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not
contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. We also consider matters which may be judicially
noticed. Further, we give the complaint a reasonable interpretation,
reading it as a whole and its parts in their context.” (Blank v. Kirwan (1985)
39 Cal.3d 311, 318, citations and internal quotation marks omitted.)
B.
Discussion
Defendant solely demurs to the second cause of action for intentional
infliction of emotional distress.
1.
Legal
Standard
“The elements of a prima facie case for the
tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress are: (1) extreme and
outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless
disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the
plaintiff’s suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and
proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant’s outrageous
conduct. Conduct to be outrageous must be so extreme as to exceed all bounds of
that usually tolerated in a civilized community.” (Wilson v. Hynek
(2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 999, 1009, citation and ellipses omitted.)
2.
Discussion
Defendant argues that the Complaint does not state a cause of action
for intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Demurrer, p. (2:17.)
The Court disagrees.
Among other things, Plaintiffs allege: (1) that Defendant exposed
Plaintiffs to a severe vermin infestation, plumbing defects, a clogged bathroom
sink, a clogged kitchen sink, defective bathroom fixtures, defective cabinets,
and peeling or chipped paint; (2) that Defendant had actual and/or constructive
notice of these defects but did not take timely or reasonable steps to abate or
remedy them; (3) that Defendant intentionally acted this way to cause harm to
Plaintiffs; (4) that Defendant knew that a reasonable tenant, including
Plaintiffs, would suffer severe emotional distress from such harm; and (5) that
Plaintiffs did suffer severe emotional distress because of this conduct.
(Complaint, ¶¶ 21–22, 36–40.)
For the purposes of a demurrer, the Court must assume the truth of
these allegations. A trier of fact could
reasonably find that these allegations involve conduct so outrageous and
extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized
community. (Wilson, supra,
207 Cal.App.4th at p. 1009.)
C.
Conclusion
The Demurrer is OVERRULED.
II.
Motion
to Strike
A.
Legal
Standard
“Any party,
within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of
motion to strike the whole or any part thereof, but this time limitation shall
not apply to motions specified in subdivision (e).” (Code Civ. Proc., § 435,
subd. (b)(1).)
“The court may, upon a motion made
pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it
deems proper:
“(a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper
matter inserted in any pleading.
“(b) Strike out 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.”
(Code Civ. Proc., §
436.)
“The grounds for
a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from
any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.” (Code Civ.
Proc., § 437, subd. (a).)
“A notice of motion to strike a portion of a pleading must
quote in full the portions sought to be stricken except where the motion is to
strike an entire paragraph, cause of action, count, or defense. Specifications
in a notice must be numbered consecutively.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
3.1322(a).)
B.
Discussion
Defendant moves the Court to strike Plaintiffs’ prayers for punitive
damages based on Plaintiffs’ allegations of malice, oppression, and/or
fraud.
Plaintiffs are entitled to plead their allegations and request relief,
and they have done so. Should Plaintiffs
show malice, oppression or fraud, their claims might well entitle them to punitive
damages. Of course, it will ultimately
be Plaintiffs’ burden to prove that they are entitled to the relief that they
seek.
C.
Conclusion
The Motion to Strike is DENIED.