Derrick Farand Hayes v Housing Authority of the County of Santa Barbara

Case Number

25CV04578

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 12/01/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Demurrer; Motion to Strike; Motions to Compel (3); Motion to Deem Matters Admitted

Tentative Ruling

Derrick Farand Hayes v. Housing Authority of the County of Santa Barbara 

Case No. 25CV04578

           

Hearing Date: December 1, 2025                                                       

HEARING:              (1)       Demurrer of Defendant to Complaint

                                    (2)        Motion of Defendant to Strike Portions of Complaint

                                    (3)        Motion of Defendant to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories

                                    (4)        Motion of Defendant to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories

                                    (5)        Motion of Defendant to Compel Responses to Document Demands

                                    (6)        Motion of Defendant to Deem Matters Admitted

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiff Derrick Farand Hayes: Self-represented  

                                    For Defendant Housing Authority of the County of Santa Barbara: James Burns

                          

TENTATIVE RULING:

(1)       The general and special demurrer of defendant Housing Authority of the County of Santa Barbara to the complaint of plaintiff Derrick Farand Hayes is overruled.

(2)       The motion of Housing Authority to strike portions of the complaint is granted, with leave to amend, to strike the check in the box at paragraph 14(a)(2). Plaintiff Hayes shall file a first amended complaint, if any, on or before January 5, 2025.

(3)       The motions of Housing Authority to compel further responses are granted. Plaintiff Hayes shall serve verified responses to Housing Authority’s first sets of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and document demands on or before January 5, 2025.

(4)       The motion of Housing Authority to deem matters admitted is granted as follows: Unless plaintiff Hayes appears at the hearing and shows that he has served Housing Authority with verified responses substantially in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220, the court will deem the matters set forth in the requests for admission, set one, admitted.

(5)       The court grants the requests for awards of monetary sanctions set forth in the discovery motions and awards reasonable fees and costs to Housing Authority in the total amount of $1,868.80, to be paid by plaintiff Derrick Farand Hayes to counsel for Housing Authority on or before January 5, 2025.

Background:

As alleged in plaintiff’s complaint (Complaint, ¶ GN-1):

Defendant Housing Authority of the County of Santa Barbara (Housing Authority) owed a duty to plaintiff Derrick Farand Hayes to exercise reasonable care in maintaining an apartment located at 127 Orange Avenue, Apartment 11, Goleta, including making repairs when there was a mold problem. Hayes complained of the mold problem in January 2025. Instead of replacing drywall, Housing Authority painted over the mold, which later ate through the paint and reappeared on the wall. Hayes has suffered physical injury as a result of the exposure to the mold.

On July 24, 2025, Hayes filed his Judicial Council form complaint asserting one cause of action for general negligence.

On August 29, 2025, Housing Authority filed its demurrer and motion to strike.

On September 8, 2025, Housing Authority served on Hayes: (1) form interrogatories, set one; (2) special interrogatories, set one; (3) document demands, set one; and (4) requests for admissions, set one. (Burns decls., ¶ 2 & exhibit 1.) (Note: There are separate declarations of counsel for each motion addressing a separate set of discovery requests. Unless otherwise stated, the reference herein to declarations is to each declaration.)

On October 15, 2025, counsel for Housing Authority wrote to Hayes stating that no responses to the discovery had been received, requiring responses by October 24, and stating that if responses were not received Housing Authority would file motions to compel seeking sanctions. (Burns decls., ¶ 4 & exhibit 2.) When no responses were received, counsel sent a second letter requiring responses by November 3. (Burns decls., ¶ 4 & exhibit 3.)

No responses were received to the discovery or to any meet and confer letter. (Burns decls., ¶¶ 3-4.)

On November 4, 2025, Housing Authority filed three motions to compel as to the form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and document demands, respectively, each also seeking an award of monetary sanctions. Also on November 4, Housing Authority filed a motion seeking an order deeming matters admitted based upon the failure of Hayes to respond to the requests for admission.

On November 19, 2025, Housing Authority filed a reply stating that no opposition had been received as to any motion.

No opposition or other response has been filed by Hayes to any motion.

Analysis:

(1)       Demurrer

“We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. [Citation.] We also consider matters which may be judicially noticed. [Citation.] Further, we give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context. [Citation.]” (Evans v. City of Berkeley (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1, 6, internal quotation marks omitted.)

Housing Authority generally demurs to the negligence cause of action on the grounds that the complaint fails to state a cause of action by failing to demonstrate compliance with the claim presentation requirement of Government Code sections 911.2 and 945.4, and specially demurs on the grounds that the complaint is uncertain.

With respect to the general demurrer, Housing Authority argues that Hayes has failed to comply with the claims presentation requirement because Housing Authority is a public entity for which claims presentation is required. (Memorandum, at p. 1.)

“Except as provided in Sections 946.4 and 946.6, no suit for money or damages may be brought against a public entity on a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented in accordance with Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 900) and Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 910) of Part 3 of this division until a written claim therefor has been presented to the public entity and has been acted upon by the board, or has been deemed to have been rejected by the board, in accordance with Chapters 1 and 2 of Part 3 of this division.” (Gov. Code, § 945.4.)

“Because a demurrer challenges defects on the face of the complaint, it can only refer to matters outside the pleading that are subject to judicial notice.” (Arce v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 482.) There is no request for judicial notice filed with either the demurrer or motion to strike. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(l) [“Any request for judicial notice must be made in a separate document listing the specific items for which notice is requested …..”].) The complaint does not allege that Housing Authority is a public entity (Complaint, ¶ 5(a)(4) [box not checked]); the complaint alleges only that Housing Authority is a corporation and a business organization, form unknown (Complaint, ¶ 5(a)(1), (2)). There is therefore nothing in the complaint and no matter for which judicial notice is requested upon which the court would find the claims requirements applicable. The general demurrer will therefore be overruled on that ground.

“A special demurrer on the ground that an answer is (a) ambiguous, (b) unintelligible, or (c) uncertain is insufficient unless the demurrer points out specifically wherein the pleading is ambiguous, uncertain or unintelligible.” (Coons v. Thompson (1946) 75 Cal.App.2d 687, 690.) Neither the notice nor the memorandum identifies specifically where the pleading is uncertain. The demurrer for uncertainty will therefore be overruled.

(2)       Motion to Strike

“The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.) “Irrelevant matter” includes a “demand for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 431.10, subds. (b)(3), (c).) “The grounds for a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437, subd. (a).)

Housing Authority moves to strike the prayer for punitive damages (Box 14(a)(2)).

“In order to survive a motion to strike an allegation of punitive damages, the ultimate facts showing an entitlement to such relief must be pled by a plaintiff. [Citations.] In passing on the correctness of a ruling on a motion to strike, judges read allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth. [Citations.] 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.)

As with the demurrer above, there is nothing in the complaint, and there are no matters for which judicial notice has been requested. The court therefore cannot determine that punitive damages are not available, as argued by Housing Authority, because Housing Authority is a public agency.

“In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).)

“ ‘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, subd. (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, § 3294, subd. (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, subd. (c)(3).)

“An employer shall not be liable for damages pursuant to subdivision (a), based upon acts of an employee of the employer, unless the employer had advance knowledge of the unfitness of the employee and employed him or her with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others or authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct for which the damages are awarded or was personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. With respect to a corporate employer, the advance knowledge and conscious disregard, authorization, ratification or act of oppression, fraud, or malice must be on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (b).)

The complaint does not have an exemplary damages attachment (see Judicial Council Form No. PLD-PI-001(6)) and otherwise provides no allegations to support a punitive damages claim. The motion to strike will be granted.

(3)       Motions to Compel and to Deem Matters Admitted

“If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:

            “(a)      The party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). … [¶] … [¶]

“(b)      The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subds. (a), (b); accord, Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subds. (a), (b) [document demands].)

No responses, timely or otherwise, to the form interrogatories, special interrogatories, or document demands have been served by Hayes. The motions to compel will be granted.

“If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:

“(a)      The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). … [¶] … [¶]

“(b)      The requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).

“(c)      The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subds. (a)-(c).)

No response to the requests for admission have been served by Hayes. Unless Hayes appears at the hearing of this motion and shows that he has served a proposed response that is in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220, the motion will be granted and the matters deemed admitted.

Housing Authority requests awards of monetary sanctions against Hayes. (See Code Civ. Proc, §§ § 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c), 2033.280, subd. (c).) For each motion, counsel for Housing Authority states that he spent 2.5 hours drafting the motions at an hourly rate of $165 and with a $13.45 filing fee. Because there is no opposition filed, the court will not award anticipated fees for responding to the opposition, but will include 1 hour for all motions, combined, for writing the reply stating that no response was received and attending the hearing. The court will therefore award reasonable monetary sanctions in the total amount of $1,868.80.