OLGUIN vs CRAWFORD, et al.

Discussion 25CV125031: OLGUIN vs CRAWFORD, et al. 07/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Defendants' Motion to Strike with Demurrer; filed by JOANN CRAWFORD as trustee of JOANN L. CRAWFORD TRUST (Defendant) + CRS# 475644284355 in Department 518

Defendants seek to strike any claims for exemplary or punitive damages in the complaint due to insufficient facts to support these claims or in the alternative to demurrer to the claims of exemplary damages as insufficient. Defendants frame this request as both a demurrer and a motion to strike.

In the FAC, the request for punitive damages is mentioned in paragraphs 86, 90, and the prayer.

The tenth cause of action is for retaliation and plaintiff requests punitive damages in that cause of action. Further, Plaintiff in ¶ 90 states:

Defendants' actions were willful and done in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. Such willful and conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s rights justifies an award of punitive damages because Defendants’ conduct was oppressive and malicious as defined by California Civil Code section 3294. The willful failure and refusal to repair longstanding defects existing in Plaintiff’s units also merits an award of substantial punitive damages against all defendants. Defendants knew or should have known that their intentional failure to maintain and repair the Subject Premises posed a substantial risk of harm to Plaintiff. Defendants’ actions arose to despicable conduct carried out with willful and conscious disregard of the consumer and tenant rights and safety of others including Plaintiff.

These claims for punitive damages are rather conclusory. Defendants are vaguely charged with knowing of issues with the premises and willfully failing to make repairs.

Plaintiff asserts that Defendants were on notice of the defects including: “rodents/insects, mold/mildew, defective plumbing, unclean common areas, water leak intrusions, defective windows, no/unsecure mailbox, no weather stripping/gaps around doors, inadequate security, dangerous egress from the unit lacking steps, defective flooring, no heat and general dilapidation and lack of maintenance.” (FAC ¶ 11.) Plaintiff further offers that even though Defendants were on actual or constructive notice of these defects, the repairs were not made in order “to make Plaintiff’s life at the Subject Premises as uncomfortable as possible such that she would eventually move-out.” (FAC ¶ 16.)

“In determining whether a complaint states facts sufficient to sustain punitive damages, the challenged allegations must be read in context with the other facts alleged in the complaint. Further, even though certain language pleads ultimate facts or conclusions of law, such language when read in context with the facts alleged as to defendants' conduct may adequately plead the evil motive requisite to recovery of punitive damages” (Monge v. Superior Court (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 503, 510 [internal citation omitted].)

Plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to support the underlying tort claim, here retaliation, and

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV125031: OLGUIN vs CRAWFORD, et al. 07/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Defendants' Motion to Strike with Demurrer; filed by JOANN CRAWFORD as trustee of JOANN L. CRAWFORD TRUST (Defendant) + CRS# 475644284355 in Department 518 include factual allegations that would support the finding of malice, oppression, or fraud. (CCP § 3294.) For retaliation cases, a Plaintiff should allege specific ultimate facts showing the protected activity that triggered retaliation. The complaint should describe specific retaliatory acts and the temporal proximity between the protected activity and the adverse action while highlighting the despicable intent to harm.

Here, the complaint vaguely asserts that Defendants “engaged in a pattern of harassment and intimidation towards Plaintiff, which included, but was not limited to, the following: refusing to repair substantial habitability defects and refusing to give rent receipts.” (FAC ¶ 15.) Further, the FAC alleges that, “Plaintiff belongs to a protected class in that she has a medical condition that limits her ability to perform a major life activity.” (FAC ¶ 17.)

In reading the entirety of the complaint, it is unclear what facts show that Defendants intentionally retaliated against Plaintiff, when the retaliation occurred, and how that retaliation shows malice, oppression, and/or fraud. There are no specific facts asserted to show, in a nonconclusory manner, the evil intent of the Defendants in not making repairs to the premises. Plaintiff generally asserts that Defendants wanted to make her uncomfortable to cause her to move out, but offer no concrete examples to support this notion. Generally, in seeking punitive damages, Plaintiff must put defendants on notice of exactly which actions show malice, oppression, or fraud, including the specific incidents of harassment with dates and details tying those incidents to the failure to make repairs.

Here, the ultimate facts supporting oppression, malice, or fraud are lacking and conclusory. For this reason, Defendants request to strike any mentions of exemplary or punitive damages in the FAC, only, is GRANTED (See Motion to Strike § 4.2, p. 3.). The Court cannot strike mentions of punitive damages in documents accompanying the FAC (requested in § 4.1 of the Motion to Strike) as the notice and statement of damages are not pleadings as required by CCP § 436. The demurrer is DENIED as moot since the motion to strike is GRANTED IN PART.

Plaintiff is given leave to amend the FAC to plead sufficient facts for recovery of punitive damages. Plaintiff may file a second amended complaint with the requisite facts to adequately support exemplary damages by August 10, 2026.

--

PLEASE NOTE: Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308, subdivision (a)(1), this tentative ruling will become the order of the Court unless it is contested before 4:00 PM on the court day preceding the noticed hearing.

To contest a tentative ruling, a party should do the following:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV125031: OLGUIN vs CRAWFORD, et al. 07/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Defendants' Motion to Strike with Demurrer; filed by JOANN CRAWFORD as trustee of JOANN L. CRAWFORD TRUST (Defendant) + CRS# 475644284355 in Department 518

First, the party must notify Department 518, by email at Dept518@alameda.courts.ca.gov and copy all counsel of record and self-represented parties. The contesting party must state in the subject line of the email the case name, case number and motion.

Second, the party shall log into the eCourt Public Portal, search for this case (e.g., by case number), select the case name, select the "Tentative Rulings" tab, click the "Click to Contest this Ruling" button, enter the party's name and a brief statement of the party's reason for contesting the tentative, and click "Proceed."

Please note the Court does not permit remote appearances for motions for summary judgment that are contested. If you contest a Motion for Summary Judgment, you must appear in person.

For all other motions (unless otherwise noted in the tentative ruling), Parties may appear via videoconference, using the Zoom.com website or application. TO CONNECT TO ZOOM: Department 518 is inviting you to a scheduled ZoomGov meeting.

Topic: Department 518's Personal Meeting Room

Join ZoomGov Meeting https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16054307984

Meeting ID: 160 5430 7984

One tap mobile +16692545252,,16054307984# US (San Jose) +14154494000,,16054307984# US (US Spanish Line)

---

Dial by your location • +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose)