Carlos Rivas v. David Sakhrani, et al.

Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Vaccaro v. Kaiman (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 761, 768 [“When the defect which justifies striking a complaint is capable of cure, the court should allow leave to amend.”].)

The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Blank, supra, 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)

Before filing a motion to strike, the moving party shall meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion to strike. (CCP § 435.5(a).)

III. DISCUSSION

Meet and Confer

On May 6, 2026, the parties met and conferred telephonically regarding the instant motion to strike. (See May 13, 2026, Joint Declaration.)

The parties were unable to reach an agreement. (Ibid.)

Therefore, the Court finds that Defendants satisfy the meet and confer requirement of CCP § 435.5(a).

Analysis

Defendants move to strike Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages on the grounds that Plaintiff fails to plead any facts giving rise to oppression, fraud, or malice. (Motion at 5:12-6:3.)

Punitive damages are available when a defendant shows conduct intended to cause injury, carried on with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others. (CCP § 3294(c)(1)-(2).)

??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.” (Civ. Code § 3294(c)(1).)

??Oppression’ means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.” (Civ. Code § 3924(c)(2).)

??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.” (Civ. Code § 3294(c)(3).)

Here, Plaintiff pleads that Defendants owned, operated, maintained, and controlled the property located at 8339 Oakdale Avenue, Winnetka, California 91306 (hereinafter the “Property”). (FAC at ¶¶ 2-4.)

Beginning in 2018, Plaintiff resided at the Property as a tenant pursuant to a rental agreement with Defendants. (Id. at ¶ 10.)

The Property included a detached garage structure that was part of the leased premises and available for Plaintiff’s use. (Id. at ¶ 11.)

The garage roof “was in a deteriorating and dangerous condition due to chronic water intrusion.” (Id. at ¶ 12.)

“Plaintiff repeatedly complained to Defendants about the deteriorating condition of the garage roof and the ongoing water intrusion problems. Defendants acknowledged the water problems but failed to adequately repair or remediate the dangerous condition.” (Id. at ¶ 13.)

“The water intrusion was so severe that Plaintiff was required to place buckets inside the garage to catch water leaking through the failing roof structure.” (Id. at ¶ 15.)

On August 21, 2023,”[a]s Plaintiff entered the garage, a section of the garage roof’ weakened by years of water damage and neglected maintenance’ collapsed directly onto Plaintiff’s head, neck, and back.” (FAC at ¶¶ 17-18.)

“Plaintiff sustained serious injuries to his head, neck, and back as a result of the roof collapse.” (Id. at ¶ 19.)

“On information and belief, Defendants threatened Plaintiff that if he sought medical treatment for his injuries, Defendants would evict Plaintiff and his family from the Subject Property.” (Id. at ¶ 22.)

“As a result of Defendants’ threat, Plaintiff delayed seeking medical treatment for his injuries.” (Id. at ¶ 23.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff sufficiently alleged oppression, or “despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights? (see Civ. Code § 3924(c)(2)), by alleging that Defendants threatened to evict Plaintiff if he sought medical treatment for his injuries. (See FAC at ¶ 22.)

Retaliatory evictions violate both statutory and common law protections, giving rise to punitive damages. (See Barela v. Superior Court (1981) 30 Cal.3d 244.)

Furthermore, a plaintiff may plead punitive damages against a landlord based on allegations that the landlord had actual knowledge of defective conditions and willfully failed to correct them. (Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 903, 920-921)(see FAC at ¶¶ 13 and 17-18.)

In reply, Defendants argue that “Plaintiff’s punitive damages theory fails for three independent reasons: (1) the FAC conceals dates to fabricate pre-incident “notice”; (2) alleged “threats’ of eviction are undated, unsupported, and unrelated to the incident; and (3) Plaintiff’s own exhibits contradict allegations of conscious disregard or malicious post-incident conduct.” (Reply at 4:22-25.)

However, the Court will not consider these arguments at the pleading stage.

Notably, Plaintiff’s FAC does not provide any exhibits and, at the pleading stage, the Court accepts all alleged ultimate facts as true. (See Schmier v. City of Berkeley (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 549.)

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion to strike portions of Plaintiff’s complaint is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

Dated: May ____, 2026 __________________________________ Hon. Karen Moskowitz Judge of the Superior Court Home -->)" -->