Case Number: 24STCV28110 Hearing Date: April 15, 2025 Dept: 72
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT 72
TENTATIVE RULING
| YESENIA PERDOMO, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v. CHEROKEE NATION PROPERTIES LLC,
Defendant. |
Case No: 24STCV28110
Hearing Date: April 15, 2025 Calendar Number: 10 |
Defendant Cherokee Nation Properties, LLC (“Defendant”) demurs to the third, fifth, and seventh causes of action in the Complaint filed by Plaintiffs Yesenia Perdomo (“Perdomo”); Eduardo Garcia, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, Yesenia Perdomo (“Eduardo”); Zoey Portillo, by and through her Guardian Ad Litem, Yesenia Perdomo (“Zoey”); and Alice Portillo, by and through her Guardian Ad Litem, Yesenia Perdomo (“Alice”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”). (The Court uses parties’ first names for clarity only, and means no disrespect.)
Defendant separately moves to strike portions of the Complaint relating to Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages.
The Court SUSTAINS the demurrer to the third and fifth claims WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
The Court OVERRULES the demurrer to the seventh claim.
The Court DENIES the motion to strike.
Plaintiffs shall have 20 days from the issuance of this order to amend the Complaint.
Background
This is a landlord-tenant case. The following facts are taken from the allegations of the Complaint, which the Court accepts as true for the purposes of the demurrer.
Plaintiffs resided at 3120 West 71st Street, Los Angeles, California 90042 (the “Property”) from April 1, 2019 to January 31, 2024. Defendant owned the Property while Plaintiffs lived there.
Plaintiffs allege that, shortly after moving in, they began to experience a range of substandard conditions, including a pervasive cockroach infestation, defective flooring, water leaks, electrical issues, and general dilapidation.
Plaintiffs allege that they repeatedly notified Defendant and Defendant’s property manager and provided photographs documenting the conditions at the Property. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant failed to make adequate or timely repairs.
Plaintiffs repeatedly reported the cockroach infestation and requested pest control services. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant never treated the unit and that the infestation continued for the duration of Plaintiffs’ tenancy.
In September 2023, Plaintiffs reported leaks under the kitchen and bathroom sinks, which caused further damage to the flooring. Plaintiffs requested repairs. Plaintiffs allege that the property manager responded by telling them to move out if they did not like the conditions. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant finally repaired the sink and flooring months later.
Plaintiffs allege that the conditions at the Property caused them severe emotional distress.
Plaintiffs allege that their unit was subject to regular inspections by the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (“HACLA”), which provided rental assistance. Plaintiffs allege that HACLA inspected the unit on August 7, 2023 and found several habitability violations, including evidence of cockroach infestation, damaged walls, and deteriorate carpet. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant was ordered to make repairs. Plaintiffs allege that many of the violations remained upon a reinspection on September 8, 2023, resulting in HACLA terminating its rental assistance agreement with Defendant. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant continued to collect full rent from Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs allege that the conditions at the property and the revocation of the rental subsidy forced them to vacate the Property on January 31, 2024.
Plaintiffs filed this action on October 28, 2024, raising claims for (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of implied warranty of habitability; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”); (4) negligence; (5) nuisance; (6) wrongful eviction; and (7) violation of Civil Code, section 1942.4.
On February 27, 2025, Defendant filed the instant demurrer and motion to strike. Plaintiff filed an opposition to each and Defendant filed a reply in support of each.
Discussion
Third Claim – IIED
“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.) “Whether a defendant’s conduct can reasonably be found to be outrageous is a question of law that must initially be determined by the court; if reasonable persons may differ, it is for the jury to determine whether the conduct was, in fact, outrageous.” (Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 534.)
Here, Plaintiffs have alleged that they repeatedly sent Defendant photos of the conditions, which included a pervasive cockroach infestation. Plaintiffs have alleged that Defendant did not even have the unit treated for the nearly five-year period when they lived there. Plaintiffs have alleged conduct that a reasonable finder of fact could determine is beyond the bounds of decency in a civilized community.
Plaintiffs only conclusorily allege severe emotional distress. Plaintiffs should allege some facts showing that they suffered severe emotional distress.
The Court sustains the demurrer to this claim with leave to amend.
Fifth Claim – Nuisance
To establish an action for private nuisance, (1) “the plaintiff must prove an interference with his use and enjoyment of his property”; (2) “the invasion of the plaintiff’s interest in the use and enjoyment of the land must be substantial, that is, that it causes the plaintiff to suffer substantial actual damage”; (3) “the interference with the protected interest must not only be substantial, but it must also be unreasonable, i.e., it must be of such a nature, duration, or amount as to constitute unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of the land.” (Mendez v. Rancho Valencia Resort Partners, LLC (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 248, 262-263, citations, italics, brackets, and quotation marks omitted.)
“Where negligence and nuisance causes of action rely on the same facts about lack of due care, the nuisance claim is a negligence claim.” (El Escorial Owners’ Assn. v. DLC Plastering, Inc. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1349.)
Here, the underlying facts showing lack of due care are the same between Plaintiffs’ nuisance and negligence claims – Plaintiffs allege that they repeatedly reported the conditions on the Property and that Defendant did nothing. Thus, this claim is duplicative of the negligence claim.
The Court sustains the demurrer to this claim with leave to amend.
Seventh Claim – Violation of Civil Code, Section 1942.4
“A landlord of a dwelling may not demand rent, collect rent, issue a notice of a rent increase, or issue a three-day notice to pay rent or quit pursuant to subdivision (2) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if all of the following conditions exist prior to the landlord’s demand or notice:
(1) The dwelling substantially lacks any of the affirmative standard characteristics listed in Section 1941.1 or violates Section 17920.10 of the Health and Safety Code, or is deemed and declared substandard as set forth in Section 17920.3 of the Health and Safety Code because conditions listed in that section exist to an extent that endangers the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the public or the occupants of the dwelling.
(2) A public officer or employee who is responsible for the enforcement of any housing law, after inspecting the premises, has notified the landlord or the landlord’s agent in writing of his or her obligations to abate the nuisance or repair the substandard conditions.
(3) The conditions have existed and have not been abated 35 days beyond the date of service of the notice specified in paragraph (2) and the delay is without good cause. For purposes of this subdivision, service shall be complete at the time of deposit in the United States mail.
(4) The conditions were not caused by an act or omission of the tenant or lessee in violation of Section 1929 or 1941.2.”
(Civ. Code, § 1942.4, subd. (a).)
“A landlord who violates this section is liable to the tenant or lessee for the actual damages sustained by the tenant or lessee and special damages of not less than one hundred dollars ($100) and not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000).” (Civ. Code, § 1942.4, subd. (b)(1).)
Defendant contends that Plaintiffs have not alleged that the prerequisite conditions were ongoing at a time when Defendant collected rent.
Here, Plaintiffs have alleged that Defendant continued to collect rent even after the August 7, 2023 inspection and that the conditions at the unit remained ongoing. (Complaint ¶ 33, 93, 22 .)
Defendant contends that it is unclear what period of rent Plaintiffs seek recovery for. This issue can be resolved in discovery.
The Court overrules the demurrer to this claim.
Motion to Strike
The Court denies the motion to strike as moot.