Saffore v. Jones

1

CHARLES A. SAFFORE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MARGARET A. JONES et al., Defendants and Respondents.

B309099

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fifth Division

March 9, 2023

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. 19STCV23574 Barbara M. Scheper, Judge. Affirmed.

Charles A. Saffore, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, Jeffry A. Miller, Kelly W Migoya and Suzanne L. Schmidt for Defendants and Respondents.

MOOR J.

Plaintiff and appellant Charles A. Saffore appeals from a judgment of dismissal following the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend in favor of defendants and respondents Margaret A. Jones, Jones &Jones Management Group, Inc. (the Management Group), and Roxanne Partnership, L.P (collectively defendants), in this action arising out of the habitability of a rental property. We conclude Saffore's contentions on appeal fail to present any clear, reasoned argument for reversal. The defendants' failure to meet and confer is not grounds to reverse the judgment, and the complaint failed to state a claim for negligence, fraud, or intentional tort. Therefore, we affirm.

FACTS^[1]

In 2015, Jones was the chief financial officer of the Management Group, as well as president and chief executive officer of Roxanne. Roxanne owned a rent-controlled 22-unit apartment building in Los Angeles. The water pipes in the apartment building were corroded, requiring complete replacement.

In April 2015, Roxanne submitted a tenant habitability plan (the plan) describing repair work for the property that would have an impact on habitability. The primary renovation work was described as a complete repipe with new copper piping for 22 units, as well as patching holes in the walls that were required to repipe. The plan stated that holes would be made in the kitchens and bathrooms to access and replace existing pipes. Tenants' possessions were to be covered in plastic to prevent damage. With notice, the water would be shut off for only one or two days throughout the entire project. The plan stated the tenants did not need to temporarily relocate, because their homes would be habitable outside of construction hours and they would not be exposed to hazardous materials. Construction was expected to take 29 days, within a specific time frame. The Los Angeles Housing and Community Investment Department (the Department) accepted the plan.

Saffore was a tenant in the building, with a medical history of pneumothorax, high blood pressure, and prediabetes. He sent a request for permanent relocation assistance to the building owner in April 2015. Saffore also filed a timely appeal of the plan on the ground that the work would complicate his existing medical conditions. At a hearing on his appeal, Saffore requested temporary relocation assistance for the duration of the construction work, questioned the adequacy of the landlord's asbestos report, noted that testing for lead had not been completed, and doubted that the project would be completed within 29 days.

Based on concerns raised by tenants at the hearing, the landlord conducted additional testing for asbestos and lead. The asbestos report showed no asbestos in the units and a minimal level in the exterior stucco material, which did not subject the building to abatement regulations. The report confirmed the presence of lead-based paint, but the Department found the report was sufficient to allow the project to proceed, because the use of lead-safe practices would adequately address potential exposure to lead-based materials.

A hearing officer for the Department issued a decision in August 2015. The hearing officer noted that Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) section 152.03(A)(1) required landlords to obtain a permit before undertaking primary renovation work. In addition, LAMC section 152.05 and Rent Adjustment Commission (RAC) Regulations and Guidelines, regulation 715.00 et seq., provides that affected tenants have the option to voluntarily terminate their tenancies in exchange for permanent relocation assistance when primary renovation work and related work will impact the habitability of a rental unit for 30 days or more.

The hearing officer found that because the work described in the plan would be completed within 29 days, the units would be returned to habitable conditions outside of working hours, and the tenants would not be exposed to hazardous materials, the tenants were not entitled to permanent relocation assistance or temporary replacement housing. Although specific tenant circumstances might make it unsafe for a tenant to remain in place, there was insufficient evidence that it was unsafe for any tenant to remain in place during the proposed work. The new time frame for construction was to begin on September 14, 2015, and to finish on October 13, 2015.

The hearing officer accepted the plan and ordered the landlord to obtain all permits and inspection approvals required by the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety (LADBS), including any corrections required. The landlord was ordered to perform all work in a lead-safe manner, in accordance with established practices. Under LAMC section 152.05(A), if the primary renovation work or any related work continued for 30 days longer than the projected completion date, the option of any affected tenant to accept permanent relocation assistance must be renewed.

Work commenced on September 14, 2015. Saffore requested a negative air machine to be used on September 21, 2015, when the walls would be open in his apartment, due to his history of pneumothorax. The record does not reflect whether he received a negative air machine.

After an inspection on September 30, 2015, the LADBS issued a correction notice for several items. One of the items listed was to provide insulation on all hot water mains and circulating piping, including specific instruction to install insulation on the hot water main at the water heater location.

The Department inspected all of the tenant units on October 26, 2015, for compliance with the plan, except one in which the tenant was not home and had a dog with a history of biting. The inspection showed that all patching, painting, and clean-up work for the repiping of the building had been completed. An LADBS inspector inspected the plumbing work and the repipe permit was "[f]inaled" by the LADBS on October 29, 2015. The plan was closed as of October 29, 2015.

On November 16, 2015, the Management Group denied Saffore's request for permanent relocation assistance, because the plan was closed by the Department's inspection on October 29, 2015, within 30 days of the completion date of October 13, 2015.

In March 2017, the Management Group notified tenants that the City of Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Board had approved a rent increase of $20.06 per month based on the capital improvement, which would be effective May 1, 2017.

Saffore found an area of piping in the garage that was not insulated. Complaint number 624968 was filed with the Department on May 15, 2017, concerning a leaky or defective plumbing fixture. The Department conducted an inspection on June 1, 2017. The inspector observed exposed piping in the garage area. The Department issued an order to the owner to provide permits and a final inspection approval from LADBS for the plumbing repipe to include exposed pipes in the garages on two sides of the building. In addition, the owner was ordered to insulate all exposed hot water pipes in the garages on two sides of the building. Complaint number 624968 was closed that day.

The inspector opened complaint number 628002, however, to address the uninsulated hot water piping in the garage area. An inspection notice was sent to the property owner requesting that the owner insulate all exposed hot water pipes in all garage areas. The exposed piping in the garage area was subsequently covered over with plaster, without obtaining a permit for the plaster work. The inspector verified that the owner had previously obtained a plumbing permit for the plumbing work, which was signed off by the LADBS. At an inspection on July 10, 2017, the inspector found the hot water piping insulation violation was corrected and closed complaint number 628002.

Saffore wrote to the Department's Regulatory Compliance and Code Bureau alleging that complaint numbers 624968 and 628002 had been closed in error. He asked the Department to have LADBS reinspect the plumbing work. Chief Inspector Robert Galardi replied to Saffore on October 25, 2017, to explain the inspections that had been conducted and the closure of the complaints. He noted that the Department had no authority to request that LADBS reinspect the completed permitted plumbing work.

On June 30, 2018, Saffore moved out of his rental unit.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On July 8, 2019, Saffore, representing himself, filed a complaint against several defendants, including Jones, the Management Group, and Roxanne. He filed an amended complaint, followed by a second amended complaint. Jones filed a demurrer to the second amended complaint, as did the Management Group and Roxanne. The record on appeal does not contain the ruling on the demurrers or a reporter's transcript of the hearing but the respondents' brief states that the trial court sustained the demurrers with leave to amend.

On July 17, 2020, Saffore filed the operative third amended complaint against Jones, the Management Group, and Roxanne, claiming negligence, intentional tort, and fraud. In the cause of action for negligence, Saffore alleged the defendants did not follow rent control regulations and the provisions of the plan. The defendants allowed the contractor to practice...