Claims for breach of warranty of habitability

Useful Rulings on Breach of Warranty of Habitability

Recent Rulings on Breach of Warranty of Habitability

51-75 of 1053 results

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

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

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

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

ALEX METS VS L'ABRI MANAGEMENT,INC., ET AL.

A cause of action for breach of the implied warranty of habitability is an action sounding in contract based upon the existence of the underlying lease agreement. (Id. at 619.) To the extent that this cause of action is based on a contract (i.e., the lease), Plaintiff must adequately allege the contract.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GUSTAVO ANTONIO RUIZ, ET AL. VS JACQUELINE PACE

¿Neovi¿Data Corp.¿(2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 86, 92.¿ Demurrer Analysis: First and Second COAs: Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability and Breach of Implied Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment The elements of breach of breach of implied warranty of habitability are: (1) a materially defective condition affecting habitability; (2) a defective condition was unknown to the tenant at time of occupancy; (3) effect on habitability of the defective condition was not apparent on reasonable inspection; (4) notice given to

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

AIDA OGANESIAN, ET AL. VS CAH-2014-1 BORROWER, LLC, ET AL.

Plaintiffs filed the Original Complaint on April 10, 2019, the First Amended Complaint on June 19, 2019, and the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) on January 10, 2020, alleging ten causes of action sounding in: (1) Private Nuisance; (2) Breach of Warranty of Habitability; (3) Negligence; (4) Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (5) Breach of Implied Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment; (6) Violation of Civil Code § 1942.4; (7) Constructive Eviction; (8) Violation of FEHA § 12955, subd.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

SAUL ARMAS VS. 9510 VAN NUYS BLVD. LLC., ET AL

On September 19, 2019, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff on his claims for: (1) breach of warranty of habitability; (2) breach of quiet enjoyment; and (3) violation of Civil Code section 1942.4 and awarded Plaintiff $75,000 in damages against Defendants 9510 Van Nuys Blvd., LLC and Anza Management Company (hereinafter, Defendants). The Court issued a writ of execution in the amount of $75,025 against Defendants to further the collection of the judgment against them.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

YOUNG LEE, ET AL. VS ROYAL VIKING MOTEL, ET AL.

On October 17, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their operative complaint, which includes the following nine causes of action: C/A 1: Breach of Warranty of Habitability (Civil Code §1941.1) C/A 2: Breach of Warranty of Habitability (Civil Code §17920.3) C/A 3: Breach of Warranty of Habitability (Civil Code §1942.4) C/A 4: Negligence – Premises Liability C/A 5: Nuisance C/A 6: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress C/A 7: Breach of Contract C/A 8: Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment C/A 9: Fraud/Deceit

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

EMIL MATUSENKO ET AL VS DALCO FORENSIC CONSULTANTS INC ET AL

First Cause of Action – Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability Matrix argues Plaintiffs’ first claim fails because it does not owe Plaintiffs an implied warranty of habitability, thus negating Plaintiffs’ ability to plead sufficient facts showing that Matrix beached this warranty. Matrix asserts that, as it is not an owner, operator, or landlord of the property, it does not owe Plaintiffs an implied warranty of habitability. Rather, Plaintiffs concede Zoya is the owner of the property.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

XING WU VS AM CONSULTING ENTEPRRISES INC ET AL

Defendants correctly note that there is no implied warranty of habitability in a commercial lease. Glenn R. Sewell Sheet Metal, Inc. v. Loverde (1969) 70 Cal. 2d 666, 671. Here, the two leases were commercial leases and thus the implied warranty of habitability does not apply.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

MARIA M. CONTRERAS, ET AL. VS ARIS SARIGIANIDES TRUST, ET AL.

Plaintiffs’ Complaint contains the following Causes of Action: (1) Breach of Warranty of Habitability (Violation of Civil Code Section 1941.1), (2) Breach of Warranty of Habitability (Health & Safety Code Section 17920.3, (3) Breach of Warranty of Habitability (Violation of Civil Code Section 1942.4), (4) Negligence – Premises Liability, (5) Nuisance, (6) Battery, (7) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, (8) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, (9) Breach of Contract and (10) Breach of Covenant

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SHERI MURRAY V. GERALD HARTZELL

Plaintiffs allege that the material breaches of the implied warranty of habitability rendered the Subject Premises unfit for human habitation and rendered the value of the Subject Premises zero for the duration of the lease, and that Defendants breached their duties to provide Plaintiffs which habitable premises which they could quietly enjoy. (Id., ¶¶ 15, 17.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 10, 2020

BOBBY WELCH II, ET AL. V. DAISY VILLANEUVA, ET AL.

Superior Court (1974) 10 Cal.3d 616, 619 [warranty of habitability implied in leases]; Multani v. Knight (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 837, 855 [quiet enjoyment arises from lease; nuisance arises from injury to property].) Accordingly CAROLYN and BOBBY III do not plead facts sufficient to support their first, second, third, fifth, sixth, seventh, ninth, tenth, eleventh, or twelfth causes of action. Erlach v.

  • Hearing

    May 26, 2020

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 43     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.