Claims for breach of warranty of habitability

Useful Rulings on Breach of Warranty of Habitability

Recent Rulings on Breach of Warranty of Habitability

CHUAN JUN LI VS QI ZHAO

On September 11, 2018, Plaintiff filed a verified complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendant and Does 1-10 for: Breach of Warranty of Habitability (Contract) Breach of Warranty of Habitability (Tort) Negligent Maintenance of Premises Maintenance of Nuisance Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Retaliatory Eviction (Civil Code § 1942.5) Compel Mediation On November 14, 2019, Defendant’s default was entered.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

SU YANG, ET AL. VS JDW ASSOCIATION, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY;, ET AL.

Factual Background This is an action for breach of the warranty of habitability. The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges as follows.

  • Hearing

    Aug 10, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

RACHEL LEVI ET AL VS ASTRID NELSON ET AL

On September 26, 2019, White filed his third amended complaint (“TAC”), the operative pleading, for (1) breach of contract, (2) fraud, (3) negligence, (4) breach of warranty of habitability and Health and Safety Code, (5) violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code §1750 et seq.), (6) violation of the Unfair Business Practices Act (Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 et seq.), (7) class action for declaratory relief and injunctive relief, and (8) negligence.

  • Hearing

    Aug 07, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

SHAHNAZ AMIRTALESH VS ROCHELLE H. STERLING, ET AL.

However, the cause of action discussed in Stoiber was not for financial elder abuse (it did not exist until after 1994), but was one for breach of the warranty of habitability. In addition, Defendants argue in reply that Plaintiff fails to cite case law to support an elder abuse cause of action in relation to a landlord-tenant dispute, and that such a dispute was not intended to be encompassed by the Elder Abuse Statute.

  • Hearing

    Aug 07, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

BRIAN BROSNAN, ET AL. VS MOSS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, DBA MOSS AND COMPANY PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

The first amended complaint (“FAC”), filed December 23, 2019, alleges causes of action for: (1) breach of implied warranty of habitability; (2) negligence; (3) nuisance; (4) breach of warranty of quiet enjoyment; and (5) fraud. B. Relevant Background and Motion to Strike On December 13, 2019, the Court held a hearing on Defendant’s first motion to strike portions of the initial complaint. Defendant had moved to strike allegations for punitive damages and the request for attorney’s fees.

  • Hearing

    Aug 07, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GILDA BRASCH VS E&S RING MANAGEMENT, ET AL.

Violation of this section can give rise to a cause of action for breach of the warranty of habitability. However, plaintiff separately pleaded causes of action for breach of the warranty of habitability and Cal. Civ. Code §1942.4. Violation of §17920.3 does not provide for an independent cause of action. SUSTAINED without leave to amend. Breach of Contract To set forth a cause of action for breach of contract, plaintiff must allege “whether the contract is written, oral or implied by conduct. Otworth v.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CHRISTOPHER BORUNDA VS MY MANAGEMENT CO., INC., ET AL.

Procedural History On July 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants for forcible entry; violation of Civil Code section 1940.2 (covenant of quiet enjoyment); IIED; violation of Civil Code section 789.3; violation of Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance; violation of Civil Code section 52.1; breach of warranty of habitability; and unfair business practices. On July 14, 2020, the court granted Plaintiff’s ex parte application for a TRO and for setting an OSC re: preliminary injunction.

  • Hearing

    Aug 04, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

LUIS ZULETA, ET AL. VS ELIZA KIM

Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging causes of action for: (1) retaliation in violation of California Civil Code, Sections 1942.5(a) and 1942.5(d); (2) breach of the implied warranty of habitability; (3) violation of California Civil Code, Section 1940.2—covenant of quiet enjoyment; (4) violation of California Civil Code, Section 52.1—Bane Act; (5) breach of common law duty of care, including tortious negligence, negligence per se, and negligent infliction of emotional distress; (6) violation of California

  • Hearing

    Aug 03, 2020

ROSARIO VS. SEKK INVESTMENTS

They allege a variety of breaches of the warranty of habitability on SEKK’s part, alleged to result from SEKK’s failure to correct a variety of substandard conditions in the building. SEKK’s present motion affects only these two plaintiffs – Mendoza Moreno and Barajas. The motion does not reach any claims of any of the other 15 plaintiffs. For that reason, and for clarity of exposition, this ruling will speak of “plaintiffs” to mean only Mendoza Moreno and Barajas.

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2020

NORA MENDOZA 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 31, 2020

SANDRA RUIZ, ET AL. VS DELAINE YATES, ET AL.

The Complaint alleges thirteen causes of action for: 1) breach of common law duty of care; 2) breach of warranty of habitability; 3) violation of Civ. Code § 1942.4; 4) violation of Civ. Code § 1940.2; 4) breach of the common law implied covenant of quiet enjoyment; 6) violation of Civ. Code § 1714; 7) intentional infliction of emotional distress; 8) nuisance; 9) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; 10) violation of Civ. Code §§ 1942.5(a) and (d); 11) violation of Civ.

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

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 31, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

MORAYMA A RUIZ VS RIGOBERTO ROMO ET AL

The FAC asserts causes of action for: (1) violation of Civil Code § 1942.4; (2) tortious breach of the warranty of habitability; (3) private nuisance; (4) Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq; (5) negligence; and (6) premises liability. The FAC alleges Defendants failed to adequately maintain real property located at 8801 Tobias Avenue, Panorama City, CA 91402. The case is currently pending in Department 14 of the Stanley Mosk courthouse with trial set for November 9, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

SANDRA TORRES, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS RAFAAT KALLINI, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE KALLINI REVOCABLE TRUST, ET AL.

(2) Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability: The Complaint lacks facts to show an "uninhabitable condition" and "actual or constructive knowledge of landlord". (3) Constructive Eviction: Plaintiffs pleads sufficient facts to show that they abandoned the premises because they were left to live in a garage.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

JAIA TYLER WILSON VS ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST, INC.

Plaintiff’s operative Complaint alleges nine causes of action as follows: (1) breach of implied warranty of habitability, (2) premises liability, (3) negligence, (4) nuisance, (5) breach of contract, (6) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (7) breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment, (8) violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq., (9) wrongful eviction.

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

BABAFEMI AKINFOLAJIMI , ET AL. VS GARDEN OAKS TOWNHOMES ASSOCIATION INC

Second Cause of Action (i.e., Breach of the Warranty of Habitability) Under the implied warranty of habitability, “a residential landlord covenants that premises he leases for living quarters will be maintained in a habitable state for the duration of the lease.” (Green v. Superior Court (1974) 10 Cal.3d 616, 637.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2020

GUADALUPE ALCANTAR GRANADOS, GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR MINORS, ET AL. VS 4551 W LAWNDALE, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

“A tenant may state a cause of action in tort against his landlord for damages resulting from a breach of the implied warranty of habitability.” Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal. App. 3d 903, 918-19; see also Smith v. David (1981) 120 Cal. App. 3d 101, 112 n.3 (a tenant “may seek general and punitive damages for . . . breach of warranty [of habitability]”). The court in Stoiber stated that a “nuisance may be either a negligent or an intentional tort.

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

PABLO LOPEZ VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC

Defendants demur to the first and second causes of action for breach of contract and breach of the implied warranty of habitability arguing that pursuant to the written Residential Lease Agreement attached to the Complaint as Exhibit A, Defendants are not parties to the contract and therefore cannot be held liable for a breach of contract or a breach of the implied warranty of habitability.

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

RANULFO SANTARRIAGA VS MIRNA ALCANTARA

Alcantara for (1) negligence; (2) breach of implied warranty of habitability; (3) violation of Los Angeles Municipal Code § 151.04/151.10 et seq.; (4) violation of Civil Code § 1940.2; (5) violation of Civil Code § 789.3; (6) violation of Civil Code § 1942.4; and (7) unlawful and unfair business practices. On November 5, 2019, Plaintiff California Automobile Insurance Company commenced this action, case number 19STCV39830, against Defendants Mirna E.

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

LETESHIA DRISDOM , ET AL. VS VANESSA GARCIA, ET AL.

BACKGROUND On April 10, 2019, plaintiffs Leteshia Drisdom and Marshawn Hemmans, a minor by and through GAL Leteshia Drisdom filed a complaint against Vanessa Garcia and Angel Chamale for (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 §1942.5, (7) constructive eviction, and (8) violation of Civil Code §1950.5.

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

RODRIGUEZ VS. CAMPOS

Plaintiffs also allege Defendants also breached the implied warranty of habitability by failing to correct substandard conditions, including but not limited to electrical and plumbing deficiencies, water leaks, mold and mildew, rodent and pest infestations, and garbage disposal deficiencies. As a direct result of Defendants’ breaches, Plaintiffs allege they suffered illness, physical injury, mental and emotional distress, and discomfort and annoyance.

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

KANA CLARK VS JOHN MACARAY

BACKGROUND On November 20, 2018, plaintiff Kana Clark filed a complaint against John Macaray for (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of the implied warranty of habitability, (3) breach of the implied covenant of quite enjoyment, (4) private nuisance, (5) negligence, and (6) IIED. Plaintiff alleges that on February 13, 2018, plaintiff executed a one-year lease agreement, with the term commencing on February 17, 2018, and a termination date of February 28, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Jul 22, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

RONILLO C. CORTINA VS. MELENCIO FAJARDO JR., ET AL

(Defendant) and Does 1 through 10, alleging: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the implied warranty of habitability; (3) breach of the implied warranty of quiet enjoyment; (4) failure to provide relocation assistance in violation of the Los Angeles Municipal Code (L.A.M.C.) sections 151.09 and 152 et seq.; (5) illegal collection of rent in violation of L.A.M.C. section 151.05; (6) negligence; (7) fraud by intentional misrepresentation; and (8) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

  • Hearing

    Jul 22, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

SMITH, ET AL. V. WEISBERG, ET AL.

Plaintiffs’ first cause of action for violation of Civil Code section 789.3, fourth cause of action for violation of Civil Code section 1940.2, fifth cause of action for violation of the Unfair Competition Law, and sixth cause of action for breach of the warranty of habitability are claims against the landlord. Plaintiffs allege that the owner of the real property was Defendant Menemsha Equity, LLC, a limited liability company. (FAC, ¶¶ 5, 8.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 22, 2020

NASIM BARJESTEH VS AVI EL-KISS, ET AL.

Seventh Cause of Action – Breach of Warranty of Habitability Breach of the warranty of habitability requires: 1. Materially defective condition affecting habitability; 2. 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 landlord within a reasonable time after the tenant discovered, or should have discovered, breach; and 5. damages. (Quevedo v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 21, 2020

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.