DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT; MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF COMPLAINT
Based on the above, the demurrer to the Second Cause of Action is SUSTAINED.
Plaintiff’s latest attempt to amend his complaint has resulted in frivolous allegations being substituted in and previously rejected allegations being reasserted. Thus, the Court finds Plaintiff has no reasonable possibility of amending the complaint to assert a meritorious cause of action. Therefore, leave to amend is DENIED.
10. MCMILLAN VS. R.W.
1. DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT SHELBY & CO., INC. 2026-01540339 Defendants R.W. Selby & Co., Inc.; Chris Cordova; Shannon Fernadnez; and 30122 Niguel Apartments, LLC’s Demurrer is OVERRULED.
Defendants demur to the second through fourth causes of action on the ground Plaintiffs failed to adequately allege a landlord-tenant relationship which in an essential element of each cause of action.
“A cardinal rule of pleading is that only the ultimate facts need be alleged.” (Ludgate Ins. Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 592, 606.) Plaintiffs have plead sufficient ultimate facts to allege Defendants are Plaintiffs’ landlord. Plaintiffs allege the parties “were in a landlord-tenant relationship created by a written lease agreement (‘Lease’).” (Compl., ¶ 23.) Thus, Defendants’ demurrer is overruled.
2. MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF COMPLAINT
Defendants R.W. Selby & Co., Inc.; Chris Cordova; Shannon Fernadnez; and 30122 Niguel Apartments, LLC’s Motion to Strike Portions of the Complaint is DENIED.
Defendants seek to strike references to punitive damages in the Complaint.
A demand for punitive damages for the commission of any tort requires more than the mere allegation of the “oppression, fraud, and malice” language found in Civil Code section 3294. (See Perkins v Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 1, 6-7.) “[F]acts must be alleged in the pleading to support such a claim.” (Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Section 3294, subdivision (c) defines malice, oppression and fraud as follows: “(1) ‘Malice’ means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others. [¶] (2) ‘Oppression’ means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust
hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights. [¶] (3) ‘Fraud’ means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.”
Plaintiffs’ allegations are sufficient to support a claim for punitive damages. Plaintiffs allege they notified Defendants numerous times of repeated leaks and flooding in the premises. (Compl., ¶ 3.) Defendants delayed remediating the leaks and flooding, failed to do any mold testing, failed to properly inspect the premises, failed to address the cause of the leaks, and failed to take precautions to prevent additional mold growth. (Compl., ¶ 3.) Defendants were notified of toxic mold in Plaintiffs’ apartment in October 2024 and their remediation failed to properly remove the mold. (Compl., ¶¶ 1- 2.) The mold issue persisted until at least March 2025, and Defendants demanded continued payment of rent without properly remediating the mold of leaks. (Compl., ¶¶ 4, 16.) The allegations are sufficient to allege a conscious disregard for Plaintiffs’ health.
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Strike is denied.
12. ECKHOFF VS. FAMILIES ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PRELIMARY INJUNCTION FORWARD 202601574381 Petitioner Stephanie Eckhoff seeks a Preliminary Injunction restraining and enjoining Respondent Families Forward from taking any action to further terminate her program status or her continued possession of the premises located at 17 Cascade, Irvine, CA 92605 is CONTINUED to July 14, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., in Department C32.
Factual Background:
On June 2, 2026, Petitioner filed a verified Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandamus against Respondent Families Forward, challenging Families Forward’s termination of Petitioner’s enrollment in the Rapid Rehousing Plus Program. (Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate (“Petition”), ¶ 12, 28.)
Petitioner contends she has a documented mental health disability and that she and her two minor children (one of whom has since turned 18 and one of whom is 12 years old) experienced chronic homelessness prior to January 2025. (Petition, ¶¶ 9, 10.) On January 22, 2025, Petitioner was enrolled in the Rapid Rehousing Plus program administered by Families Forward. (Petitioner, ¶ 12.) Petitioner’s enrollment in the program was terminated on February 28, 2026. (Petitioner’s Decl., ¶ 19.) Petitioner contends Families Forward (1) violated 24 C.F.R. § 576.402 by terminating Petitioner’s rental assistance without providing written notice, without stating clear reasons for termination, and without providing Petitioner with an opportunity to present objections before an impartial decision-maker; (2) violated HUD HMIS data standards and CES requirements; and