1.DEMURRER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT

The Demurrer filed by Defendants Hillsford Homeowners Association, David Klein, Cyrus Christian, and Joe Ishak (?Defendants?) as to the Second and Fourth Causes of Action in Plaintiffs? First Amended Complaint (the ?FAC?) is Sustained with 15 days leave to amend.

The Second Cause of Action purports to be a claim?for Injunctive Relief.? But ?Injunctive Relief? is a remedy, not a cause of action. (Guessous v. Chrome Hearts, LLC?(2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1177, 1187;?City of South Pasadena v. Department of Transportation?(1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1280, 1293;?McDowell v. Watson?(1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1155, 1159-60.)? Plaintiffs assert that the claim is meant to seek such relief based on a breach of contract. The demurrer is thus Sustained with leave to amend.

The Fourth Cause of Action purports to state a claim?for Discrimination in Violation of FEHA, under Gov. Code ? 12927. As pled, the claim is brought by both Plaintiffs. But Plaintiffs concede that the claim is meant to be asserted only by Ms. Myers. It thus reflects a misjoinder as pled.

The claim as asserted by Ms. Myers is also defective as pled. It appears to assert a claim for failure to accommodate based on a demand that Defendants ?remove or abate? light from its community pool equipment.? (FAC ?? 38-40.) Under Gov. Code ?12927(c), ?discrimination? applies to a failure to provide reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services necessary to afford a disabled person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.? To establish discrimination based on a refusal to provide reasonable accommodations, a party must establish that accommodation is necessary to afford an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. (Auburn Woods I Homeowners Ass’n v. Fair Employment and Housing Com’n?(2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1578, 1592.)? The FAC fails to allege such facts. The Demurrer is thus Sustained with leave to amend.

Defendants? Request for Judicial Notice is Granted under Ev. Code ?452(d), as to the existence of and legal effect of the record presented. (Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA?(2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 256, 264;?Arce v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.?(2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 482.)

The Motion to Strike

Defendants? Motion to Strike is Granted in part.

Defendants move to strike portions of the FAC (items 1-4) as conclusory and unsupported allegations, and the prayer for punitive damages (item 6) on the grounds that no basis for punitive damages is shown.

A claim for punitive damages must be supported by specific factual allegations: conclusory characterization of conduct as ?intentional, willful and fraudulent? is insufficient to state a claim under Civil Code ? 3294.? (Brousseau v. Jarrett?(1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 864, 872.)?A motion to strike may lie where the facts alleged do not rise to the level of ?malice, fraud or oppression? required to support a punitive damages award. ?Here, no such facts are alleged.? Plaintiffs incorrectly assert that allegations of retaliation are necessarily sufficient to support a punitive damages claim, citing?Perkins v. Superior Court?(1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 1, 6.? But?Perkins?does not stand for such a proposition. Rather, it considered such allegations in the factual context alleged. (Id. at pp. 6-7.)? Plaintiffs here have not alleged facts sufficient to state a claim under Civil Code ? 3294. The Motion is therefore Granted as to Item 6. However, as the other allegations at issue are not clearly improper in context, the Motion is Denied?as to Items 1-4.

The Motion as to Item 5 is moot, in light of the ruling on the Demurrer.

Defendants? Request for Judicial Notice is Granted under Ev. Code ?452(d), as to the existence of and legal effect of the record presented. (Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA?(2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 256, 264;?Arce v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.?(2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 482.)

Defendants are to give notice of these rulings.