Claims for breach of warranty of habitability

Useful Rulings on Breach of Warranty of Habitability

Recent Rulings on Breach of Warranty of Habitability

HILARY VON GERLACH VS. FRG PLAZA, LLC

The FAC clarifies that these damages are based upon the failures to accommodate and breach of warranty of habitability in refusing to provide a parking space close to the elevators. (FAC ¿25.) The FAC complied with the Court of Appeal opinion and rectified the defective pleading. The breach of warranty of habitability COA is sufficiently pled to overcome the demurrer. Request to add nuisance: Plaintiff’s request to add a new COA is improperly requested in the opposition to a demurrer.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

FELIPE GARCIA INGUEZ ET AL VS TED GUERRA

Introduction On February 27, 2019, Defendant Ted Guerra (“Defendant”) filed a Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the alternative, for Summary Adjudication on all the causes of action for Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability, Tortious Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitaiblity, Negligence, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Private Nuisance, Violation of Civil Code section 1942.4, and Violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 in Plaintiffs Felipe Garcia-Inguez, Madai Najera, Felipe

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MICAELA LEYVA VS. KAREN BACA AN INDIVIDUAL

EC 065134 Causes of Action: From Complaint 1) Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability 2) Demand for Rent for Uninhabitable Dwelling 3) Negligent Maintenance of Premises 4) Violation of Unfair Competition Law 5) Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment 6) Nuisance 7) IIED 8) NIED Causes of Action: From (Mendoza) Complaint 1) Wrongful Eviction 2) Retaliatory Eviction 3) Conversion 4) Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability 5) Demand for Rent for Uninhabitable Dwelling 6) Negligent Maintenance

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

SEAN ROSS PAUL VS TISHMAN SPEYER ARCHSTONE-SMITH ET AL

BACKGROUND On June 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants alleging causes of action for: (1) breach of express and implied contract; (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing/breach of express/implied warranty of habitability; (3) fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and concealment; (4) negligence—premises liability; (5) negligence, negligent supervision, and negligent management (owner and manager); (6) negligence; (7) violation of California Business

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

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

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

DEBORAH HOLLOWAY, ET AL. VS INVESTMENT CONCEPTS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Specifically, in the context of breach of implied warranty of habitability cases, “[t]o support an award of punitive damages on the basis of conscious disregard of the safety of others, a plaintiff ‘must establish that the defendant was aware of the probable dangerous consequences of his conduct, and that he willfully and deliberately failed to avoid those consequences.’” (Penner v. Falk (1984) 153 Cal. App. 3d 858, 867.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

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

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

KATAYOUN TAGHIZADEH FAZLI ET AL VS ACTION PROPERTY MANAGMENT

Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability 2. Nuisance 3. Breach of Lease 4. Negligence 5. Fraud/Concealment 6. Negligent Misrepresentation 7. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”) 8. Unfair Business Practices William Byron is not charged with the 3rd cause of action for breach of lease. SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS Plaintiff was a tenant of the property at 242 Glendora Ave. #2, Long Beach, California commencing June 24, 2013.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

GILLIAN BURNS, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS JOHN OWENS, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

The Court notes that Giordano seeks $15,000 in damages for breach of the implied warranty of habitability, but nothing in her declaration explains how this amount was calculated. To the extent Giordano is seeking recovery for the costs of renting a different apartment, those costs appear to total $13,650 and are sought in full by Andrieux. Therefore, based on the evidence presented, the Court grants judgment to each Plaintiff as follows: Burns: $150,000 in damages and $510.50 in costs.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

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

Defendants argue that the first cause of action for breach of the implied warranty of habitability and the eighth cause of action for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment must fail because Allen does not allege facts showing that he was in a landlord-tenant relationship with Defendants. Rather, Allen alleges that he was a guest at a hotel, who stayed for only one night. (Compl., ¶ 27.) The warranty of habitability and the covenant of quiet enjoyment apply only to landlord-tenant relationships.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ALEXIS ATHERTON VS FLINKMAN PARTNERS, LLP

Sixth Cause of Action: Breach of Warranty of Habitability To establish a breach of the warranty of habitability, Plaintiffs must establish (1) “the existence of a material defective condition affecting the premises’ habitability,” (2) “notice to the landlord of the condition within a reasonable time after the tenant’s discovery of the condition,” (3) “the landlord was given a reasonable time to correct the deficiency, and” (4) “resulting damages.” (Erlach v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CESAR A. BON, ET AL. VS AZHER MALIK

Second Cause of Action for Breach of Warranty of Habitability In the seminal case that created an implied warranty of habitability, the California Supreme Court held “in keeping with the contemporary trend to analyze urban residential leases under modern contractual principles, we now conclude that the tenant's duty to pay rent is ‘mutually dependent’ upon the landlord's fulfillment of his implied warranty of habitability.” (Green v. Super. Ct. (1974) 10 Cal. 3d 616, 635.) “. . .

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY VS 38700 10TH STREET EAST, LLC, ET AL.

Golden Eagle did not involve a residential lease nor did Golden Eagle even discuss Civil Code section 1942.4 or the implied warranty of habitability. Such warranties are not implied in commercial leases. (Del Taco, Inc. v. University Real Estate Partnership V (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 16, 23.) Second, Golden Eagle’s conclusion about potential coverage is not clear-cut.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

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

TRICIA DESMARAIS VS 4TH AVENUE ASSOCIATES LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s second cause of action, however, is for breach of the implied warranty of habitability and not for a violation of Civil Code, section 1942.4.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

OKSANA DUTCHAK VS GNM II LTD., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants alleging causes of action for: (1) breach of implied warranty of habitability; (2) negligence; (3) nuisance; (4) breach of warranty of quiet enjoyment; (5) retaliatory eviction in violation of California Civil Code, Section 1942.5(a); (6) retaliatory constructive eviction in violation of California Civil Code, Section 1942.5(d); (7) retaliatory constructive eviction in violation of California Government Code, Section 12989.1; (8) retaliatory constructive eviction

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

CORBIN JOHN RECKE ET AL VS ELEONORE MESTDAGH ET AL

The FAC asserts causes of action for: Constructive Eviction; Breach of Contract; Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment; Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability; Tortious Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability; Negligence; Private Nuisance; Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; Violation of Los Angeles Municipal Code section 151.04; Violation of California Civil Code section 1942.4; Violation of California Civil Code section 1942.5; and Violation of Unfair Business Practices.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

CALIFORNIA AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS MIRNA E. ALCANTARA, ET AL.

In the underlying action, Santarriaga asserts claims of negligence; breach of warranty of habitability; Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance claims; Violation of Civil Code Section 789.3; Business and Professions Code Section 17200 Claims; and Violation of Civil Code Section 1942.4. (See LASC Case No. 19STCV33620, Complaint.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ATIENZA V. SUPER

A tenant or former tenant has an independent action to recover damages for a breach of the warranty of habitability that is separate from his or her right to repair or deduct or to raise an affirmative defense of a breach of the warranty. (See, e.g., Quevedo v. Braga (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1 (disapproved of on other grounds by, Knight v. Hallsthammar (1981) 29 Cal.3d 46) (independent action after vacating premises for abatement of excessive rent); Stoiber v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

MUN JEONG CHOI VS C & L PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT LLC ET AL

The Complaint states twelve causes of action for: 1) Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability; Breach of Contract; Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; 4) Negligence; 5) Negligence Per Se; 6) Premises Liability; 7) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; 8) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; 9) Negligent Misrepresentation; 10) Intentional Misrepresentation; 11) Concealment; and 12) Unfair Business Practices.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

ANTOINETTE SIMMONS VS GILMORE PARTNERS, LP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL.

., and Lucille Hotnog as an individual and in her capacity as CEO of Millennium Holdings, Inc, alleging: (1) unlawful business practice; (2) unfair business practice; (3) fraudulent business practice; (4) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (5) breach of warranty of habitability; (6) private nuisance; and (7) negligence. Gilmore LP, Millennium Holdings, Inc., and Lucille Hotnog (collectively, Defendants) now move to strike portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint. The motion is unopposed.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 41     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.