What is a breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment?

Useful Rulings on Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment

Recent Rulings on Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment

ARTEMIO PEREZ ET AL VS JS UNION LLC ET AL

In the complaint, Plaintiffs allege for breach of lease agreement, tortious breach of implied warranty of habitability, statutory breach of warranty of habitability, negligence, premises liability, violation of LAMC §1501.04 and Civil Code §1947.11 – charging excessive rent, nuisance, collection of rent on substandard dwelling (Civil Code section 1942.4), constructive eviction, breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violation of Business & Professions Code

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

SHELDON WIDUCH VS ANCHETA HOLDINGS LLC,, ET AL.

Defendant Laura Ancheta filed a Cross-Complaint alleging that Plaintiff breached an agreement to undertake certain property management duties, engaged in conduct which violated other boarders’ rights to quiet enjoyment of the property, threatened Defendant, damaged Defendant’s property, and failed to pay rent. Plaintiff moves for leave to file a first amended complaint. TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Sheldon Widuch’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

TAJSHA JORDAN, AN INDIVIDAUL, ET AL. VS BURBANK-CANTALOUPE ASSOCIATES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Punitive damages are not available for the breach of the breach of the quiet enjoyment covenant in the absence of an eviction. (Ginsberg v. Gamson (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 873, 898-99.) Plaintiffs seek punitive damages for their intentional breach of the warranty of habitability, nuisance, negligent and intentional breach of quiet enjoyment, and constructive eviction. In opposition, Plaintiff cites to Bommareddy v. The Superior Court of Merced County (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1017.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MASSE VS. FRUEHAN

Additionally, absent a wrongful eviction claim, which the FAC does not allege, a landlord’s alleged breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment is not a tort which allows tenants to recover punitive damages. (Ginsberg v. Gamson (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 873, 899-902.) Should Plaintiffs wish to amend the complaint to address the issues herein, Plaintiffs shall file and serve an amended complaint within 15 days of service of the notice of ruling. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

MASSE VS. FRUEHAN

Additionally, absent a wrongful eviction claim, which the FAC does not allege, a landlord’s alleged breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment is not a tort which allows tenants to recover punitive damages. (Ginsberg v. Gamson (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 873, 899-902.) Should Plaintiffs wish to amend the complaint to address the issues herein, Plaintiffs shall file and serve an amended complaint within 15 days of service of the notice of ruling. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

MICAELA LEYVA VS. KAREN BACA AN INDIVIDUAL

of Premises 7) Violation of Unfair Competition Law 8) Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment 9) Nuisance 10) IIED 11) NIED SUMMARY OF FACTS: Plaintiffs Miceala Leyva and Rafael Duran allege that they have resided in an illegally built structure located at 12223 Wick Street in Sun Valley, Unit B, since April 2012 to the present, pursuant to a written lease agreement with the former landlord.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

KELSEA SAKAMOTO VS GLENOAKS TOWNHOMES LLC, ET AL.

The complaint alleges causes of action for breach of contract, breach of implied warranty of habitability/tenantability, breach of implied warranty of quiet enjoyment, negligence, constructive eviction, nuisance, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligent misrepresentation and intentional misrepresentation. ANALYSIS: Procedural Untimely Opposition Plaintiff has filed an untimely opposition to this motion.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

MARIA ALCARAZ ET AL VS CHATEAU W660 LP ET AL

Additionally, Chateau argues that Plaintiffs had exclusive control and possession of the premises, and that it was prohibited from entering the apartment because of the covenant of quiet enjoyment. Lastly, as to the negligence cause of action, Chateau argues that it did not owe a duty of care to Plaintiffs in this case because Chateau could not foresee, and did not know, that Plaintiffs were storing pots and pans in the oven, which would cause the subject fire.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

EMIL MATUSENKO ET AL VS DALCO FORENSIC CONSULTANTS INC ET AL

On June 28, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint (FAC), alleging causes of action for: (1) breach of implied warranty of habitability; (2) nuisance; (3) negligence; (4) violation of Toxic Mold Protection Act; (5) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment; (6) breach of contract; (7) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (8) declaratory relief; (9) negligence – broker/agent; (10) fraud; (11) Business and Professions Code sections 17200, et seq.; and (12) Business and Professions

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

LAURA SHAPIRO ET AL VS MORAD BEN NEMAN ET AL

The TAC asserts causes of action for (1) breach of warranty of habitability, (2) negligence, (5) forcible detainer, (6) failure to return security deposits, (9) covenant of peaceful and quiet enjoyment, (10) constructive eviction, (11) retaliatory eviction, (12) abuse of process and frivolous filings, (13) breach of warranty of suitability, (14) illegal collection of rent, (15) violation of the Los Angeles Municipal Code – Relocation Benefits, (16) breach of written contract, (17) breach of oral contract, (18

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

GILBERT VALDEZ, ET AL. VS DARSHANA GARG, ET AL.

The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) fraudulent concealment, (2) retaliatory eviction, (3) violation of Civil Code section 1942.4, (4) breach of warranty of habitability, (5) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, (6) nuisance, and (7) unfair business practices. Plaintiffs’ claims arise from their rental of Defendants’ apartment unit located at 4110 Elrovia Avenue, El Monte, California (Premises).

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

ERIK BERGMAN-AVNER VS ESPLANADE REDONDO BRE, LLC, ET AL.

Third Cause of Action for Breach of the Implied Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment As to Defendants Rivera and Esplanade Redondo, the Demurrer to the third cause of action is sustained with 20 days leave to amend. Plaintiff fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JULIE GUILBAULT VS TWC ADMINISTRATION LLC ET AL

For the same reason, KB argues that Amended Easement B was itself violated, particularly the provision requiring Godzik to maintain the easement in such a way as not to interfere with KB’s quiet enjoyment of their own property. (Motion at pp. 7–10.) Triable issues of fact prevent adjudication of these issues as well.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JOHNNY GALLO VS JAY HERGOT

On March 26, 2017, Plaintiff Johnny Gallo filed a third amended complaint against Defendant Jay Hergot alleging (1) nuisance, (2) breach of quiet enjoyment and possession of the property, (3) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (4) promissory fraud, (5) retaliatory eviction; (6) violation of civil code section 1950.5, and (7) conversion. This case was dismissed on a motion for terminating sanctions.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

MICHELLE MANNING VS TODD SMITH, ET AL.

Code § 12955); Discrimination (Civil Code § 51); Breach of Contract; Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment (Civil Code § 1940.2); Defamation; Invasion of Privacy; Public Disclosure of Private Facts; Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; Retaliatory Eviction (Civil Code § 1942.5(d) and Common Law); and Constructive Eviction. On February 10, 2020 the Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication of the third cause of action for breach of contract.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

ROY SILVER, ET AL. VS A.G. PROPERTIES, INC., ET AL.

Defendant also contends that the cause of action “appears to be little more than an unnecessary duplication of the first and second causes of action for breach of the warranty of habitability and breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment.” (Demurrer at p. 8.) Although the alleged misconduct appears to be the same, the legal theories are different. Accordingly, the Court overrules the demurrer to the sixth cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

RICHARD S HIRSCHFIELD VS TANYA COHEN

Cohen further alleges that “Cross-Complainant has been subjected to Cross-Defendants’ use, or threats to use, force, willful threats, or menacing conduct constituting a course of conduct that interferes with the Cross-Complainant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises in violation of Civil Code § 1927 that would create an apprehension of harm in a reasonable person.” (Id. ¶ 12.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

SHILLETTE BUSBY, ET AL. VS RICHARD VAUGHN, ET AL.

The Complaint alleges seven causes of action for: 1) denial of civil rights; 2) disability discrimination – Unruh Civil Rights Act; 3) breach of the warranty of habitability; 4) negligence; 5) unfair business practices; 6) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment; and 7) breach of contract. On July 8, 2019, the Court sustained the Vaughn Defendants’ demurrer to the Complaint as to the first cause of action and granted their motion to strike with leave to amend as to punitive damages.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

CHRISTOPHER THANNHAEUSER VS TKH ZUMA, LLC, ET AL.

TKH Zuma, LLC (19STCV11326) On April 2, 2019, Christopher Thannhaeuser filed an unlimited civil complaint against TKH Zuma, LLC and Mary Anne Keshen asserting causes of action for: (1) breach of written contract; (2) conversion; (3) violation of Civil Code § 1950.5; (4) violation of Civil Code § 1941.1; and (5) breach of the warranty of quiet enjoyment arising out of Plaintiff’s lease of real property located in Malibu, California. Plaintiff dismissed Defendant Keshen on September 25, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

BRAZIL A. ALLEN VS WARREN W. VALDRY, ET AL.

Punitive damages are asserted in connection with the causes of action for nuisance and breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment and again in the prayer for relief. Because Defendants’ demurrer to the nuisance and breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment causes of action is sustained, the Court denies the motion to strike as to those portions of the Complaint (paragraphs 94 and 128) as moot.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DAVID ELISHKOV VS THE SMEE TRUST, ET AL.

On December 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants asserting various causes of action including breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, quiet enjoyment, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, and declaratory relief. Defendants filed an unlawful detainer case against Plaintiff on December 30, 2019 (19VECV01843). In that case, Defendant filed an unlawful detainer action against Plaintiff involving the same commercial property in Canoga Park.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CESAR A. BON, ET AL. VS AZHER MALIK

Civil Code § 1940.2 forbids a landlord from making threats to interfere with a tenant’s quiet enjoyment of property or engaging in menacing conduct for the purposes of influencing a tenant to vacate a dwelling. Cal. Civ. Code § 1940.2. Again, Plaintiffs have not alleged that Hocker is a landlord for this section to apply. The court, therefore, sustains the demurrer to the ninth cause of action with leave to amend. 8.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

DEMETRIO HARO, ET AL. VS C&P PROPERTIES #1, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

The complaint was filed on January 8, 2020 and alleges five causes of action sounding in: (1) Breach of Warranty of Habitability; (2) Negligent Maintenance of Premises; (3) Nuisance; (4) Breach of Quiet Enjoyment; (5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. PRESENTATION: On March 27, 2020, C&P filed the instant pleading. Opposition was filed on May 12, 2020, and a reply was filed on June 25, 2020. The original hearing date was May 29, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

ORTON V. CISARIA, ET AL.

Cross-complainants were awarded nothing on their cross-complaint, as the court concluded the written lease agreement was valid and enforceable, and the quiet enjoyment cause of action was, among other defects, not proven. All costs were awarded to plaintiff/cross-defendant as the prevailing party. Notice of entry of judgment was sent on March 30, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

AIMCO VENEZIA LLC VS ANGEL ZAPATA

Plaintiff alleges this conduct caused disruption at the apartment building, as the guests were not subjected to Plaintiff’s criminal history check, Airbnb and VRBO short-term renters frequently hosted parties in the unit and at the pool and other recreational facilities at the building, thereby diminishing the safety and quiet enjoyment of other residents’ use of the building, thereby affecting Plaintiff’s business practices. (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 24.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 35     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.