Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/20/2021 at 15:26:46 (UTC).

BETY PEREZ JUAREZ, ET AL. VS JUAN ROBLEDO, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 01/19/2021 BETY PEREZ JUAREZ filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against JUAN ROBLEDO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******2187

  • Filing Date:

    01/19/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

SANDOVAL AVENDANO JOSE LUIS

JUAREZ BETY PEREZ

Defendants

ROBLEDO GERARDO

ROBLEDO ANGELINA

ROBLEDO JUAN JR.

ROBLEDO JUAN

ROBLEDO NANCY

ROBLEDO ROSINA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

RILEY GRANT K. ESQ.

MITCHELTREE TARA ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer

4/26/2021: Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer

Notice of Case Management Conference

2/1/2021: Notice of Case Management Conference

Application And Order For Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem - APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR STEVEN

2/3/2021: Application And Order For Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem - APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR STEVEN

Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

2/24/2021: Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

Proof of Personal Service

3/3/2021: Proof of Personal Service

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

3/18/2021: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

3/18/2021: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

3/18/2021: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

3/18/2021: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

3/18/2021: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Application And Order For Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem - APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR JAYDEN

1/22/2021: Application And Order For Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem - APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR JAYDEN

Civil Case Cover Sheet

1/19/2021: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

1/19/2021: Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

Complaint

1/19/2021: Complaint

2 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/21/2021
  • Hearing06/21/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 30 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2021
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by Bety Perez Juarez (Plaintiff); Jayden Sandoval Perez (Plaintiff); Steven Sandoval Perez (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2021
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by Bety Perez Juarez (Plaintiff); Jayden Sandoval Perez (Plaintiff); Steven Sandoval Perez (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2021
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by Bety Perez Juarez (Plaintiff); Jayden Sandoval Perez (Plaintiff); Steven Sandoval Perez (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2021
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by Bety Perez Juarez (Plaintiff); Jayden Sandoval Perez (Plaintiff); Steven Sandoval Perez (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2021
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by Bety Perez Juarez (Plaintiff); Jayden Sandoval Perez (Plaintiff); Steven Sandoval Perez (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2021
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Bety Perez Juarez (Plaintiff); Jayden Sandoval Perez (Plaintiff); Steven Sandoval Perez (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2021
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Bety Perez Juarez (Plaintiff); Jayden Sandoval Perez (Plaintiff); Steven Sandoval Perez (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2021
  • DocketApplication And Order For Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem (for Steven); Filed by Bety Perez Juarez (Plaintiff); Jayden Sandoval Perez (Plaintiff); Steven Sandoval Perez (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/01/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2021
  • DocketApplication And Order For Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem (for Jayden); Filed by Bety Perez Juarez (Plaintiff); Jayden Sandoval Perez (Plaintiff); Steven Sandoval Perez (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2021
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Bety Perez Juarez (Plaintiff); Jayden Sandoval Perez (Plaintiff); Steven Sandoval Perez (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2021
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Bety Perez Juarez (Plaintiff); Jayden Sandoval Perez (Plaintiff); Steven Sandoval Perez (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 21STCV02187    Hearing Date: June 4, 2021    Dept: 30

Dept. 30

Calendar No.

Juarez, et al. vs. Robledo, et. al., Case No. 21STCV02187

Tentative Ruling re: Defendants’ Motion to Strike

Defendants move to strike paragraphs 36, 43, 48, and 56 from the complaint and strike paragraphs 4, 7, 10, and 13 from the Prayer for Relief. These allegations all relate to punitive damages. The motion is denied.

Punitive damages may be imposed where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).) “Malice” is conduct intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(1).) “‘Punitive damages are proper only when the tortious conduct rises to levels of extreme indifference to the plaintiff’s rights, a level which decent citizens should not have to tolerate.’ [Citation.]” (Lackner v. North (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1188, 1210.)

Despicable conduct is “conduct which is so vile, base, contemptible, miserable, wretched or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people. Such conduct has been described as ‘having the character of outrage frequently associated with crime.’” (Tomaselli v. Transamerica Ins. Co. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1287.) “Malice implies an act conceived … with criminal indifference towards the obligations owed to others.” (Kendall Yacht Corp. v. United California Bank (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 949, 958.) Oppression has been defined as “‘An act of subjecting to cruel and unjust hardship.’” (Ibid.)

In passing on the correctness of a ruling on a motion to strike, courts read the allegations in context, and assume their truth. “In ruling on a motion to strike, courts do not read allegations in isolation.” (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.)

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts sufficient to justify an award of punitive damages because the allegations do not show intentional conduct and because the allegations in the complaint are pled in entirely conclusory terms. The Court disagrees.

Plaintiffs allege that they were tenants at 551 ½ Hyde Park Place, Inglewood, CA 90302. (Complaint, ¶¶1-3.) Defendants Juan Robledo and Angelina Robledo were the owners of the property from May 02, 1993, to August 12, 2016. (Complaint, ¶¶ 4-6.) Defendants Juan Robledo, Jr., Nancy Robledo, Gerardo Robledo, and Rosina Robledo were owners of the property from August 12, 2016, to the present. (Complaint, ¶¶ 7-9.) The property suffered from illegal conditions which Defendants had notice of but failed to take timely or reasonable steps to abate or remedy the defects to save money and increase cash flow. (Complaint, ¶15.)

A tenant may seek an award of punitive damages in claims against a landlord based on the landlord’s refusal to repair defective conditions. (Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 903, 920 (Stoiber).) In Stoiber, the Court of Appeals found that the tenant had pleaded sufficient facts to support her prayer for exemplary damages because she alleged that the landlord failed to maintain the property in a habitable condition and had actual knowledge of the defective conditions in the premises including the presence of vermin, leaking sewage, deteriorated flooring, falling ceiling, leaking roof, broken windows, and other unsafe and dangerous conditions. (Ibid.)

Here, Plaintiffs allege that the property was subjected to a severe and persistent cockroach infestation, rodent infestation, and physical defects including stained and water damaged ceilings, peeling paint and plaster, inoperable heaters, torn or missing window screens, inoperable smoke detectors, and other indicia of slum or substandard housing. (Complaint, ¶15.) Plaintiffs allege that they told Defendants about these problems and that Defendants repeatedly lied to Plaintiffs when they promised to fix all these issues while continuing to collect rent from Plaintiffs. (Complaint, ¶ 31.)

Plaintiffs also allege that they were primarily Spanish-speaking, unsophisticated, and vulnerable, and that Defendants took advantage of Plaintiffs by lying to Plaintiffs and not fixing the defective conditions while continuing to charge rent. (Complaint, ¶¶ 11, 15, 19, 30-34.) Pursuant to Stoiber, supra, these allegations, if proven true, would support a claim of punitive damages. Defendants allegedly knew about all these health violations and had been given notice of the violations from Plaintiffs and yet still refused to fix the issues at the property. This conduct, as in Stoiber, entitles Plaintiffs to seek punitive damages.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer MITCHELTREE TARA