What is a constructive eviction?

Useful Rulings on Constructive Eviction

Recent Rulings on Constructive Eviction

PATRICIA DENNISON VS BAHRAM EGHBALI, ET AL.

Eighth Cause of Action (Tenant Harassment in Violation of Civil Code § 1940.2) Defendant demurs to the eighth cause of action for tenant harassment in violation of Civil Code § 1940.2 on the ground that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against him. (CCP § 430.10(e).)

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

DEBORAH ROSE, ET AL. VS FOUR TREES APARTMENTS, ET AL.

Discussion Plaintiffs move for leave to file a first amended complaint, which would (1) add the following causes of action: fourth cause of action for retaliation in violation of Civil Code section 1942.5; fifth cause of action for violation of Civil Code section 789.3; sixth cause of action for forcible detainer; seventh cause of action for wrongful eviction; and eighth cause of action for negligence; (2) omit the negligent infliction of emotional distress and unfair business practices claims; and (3) name

  • Hearing

    Nov 25, 2020

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

procedural history Plaintiffs filed the original Complaint on March 11, 2019, alleging five causes of action: Tortious breach of the warranty of habitability Negligence Nuisance Violation of Los Angeles Municipal Code and Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance Civil Code § 1940.2 On November 30, Plaintiffs filed the FAC, alleging the same give causes of action. On October 5, 2020, the Defendants filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

  • Hearing

    Nov 23, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

ADAN JESUS RUIZ, ET AL. VS WILMINGTON ARMS HOUSING, LP

“Breach can take many forms, including actual or constructive eviction.” Id. at 1035.

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

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 ("FAC") 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

    Nov 20, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

CAROLINA CARVAJAL VS KRISTINE MIKITA, ET AL.

In addition, defendants contend that plaintiff fails to allege a violation of Civil Code § 1940.2. Although the caption of plaintiff’s complaint suggests that her fifth cause of action for “Retaliatory Acts” is based on “CCC Sec. 1940.2 and 1942.5,” the actual allegations of the Complaint make clear that plaintiff’s fifth cause of action is based solely on retaliatory acts in violation of section 1942.5. (Compare Compl. at p. 1 with Compl. ¶¶ 56-67.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ESSEX & PALOMINO, LLC VS. ERIC CANTLEY, ET AL

Code § 1950.5); Negligent Maintenance of Premises; Constructive Eviction; Retaliatory Eviction (Civ. Code § 1942.5); Violations of the Los Angeles Municipal Code; Breach of Written Contract; Breach of Oral Contract; Negligent Misrepresentation; and Fraud and Intentional and Deceit. On or about April 9, 2019, Cantley was involved in a motorcycle accident and has been in a comatose state ever since.

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2020

ANGELICA ARNADO, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS 901 SOUTH BROADWAY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

Some courts have held that the covenant of quiet enjoyment is not broken until there has been actual or constructive eviction. (Id. at 898.) However, other, subsequent, cases have held that the covenant may also be broken where the tenant’s use of the premises is disturbed but the plaintiff remains in possession. (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

ST ANDREWS PHARMACY LLC VS ST ANDREWS GREEN ET AL

Meyers (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 770, 777 [holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting amendment of complaint, which originally alleged constructive eviction, to allege retaliatory eviction where the new claim was based on the same general set of facts].) Although denial is rarely justified, a judge has discretion to deny leave to amend if the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party. (Morgan v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2020

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

    Nov 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CHUN KIM VS SONG RAMBOLDT ET AL

The Complaint alleges seven causes of action for: 1) breach of contract; 2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; 3) breach of the implied warranty of habitability; 4) intentional misrepresentation; 5) negligent misrepresentation; 6) constructive eviction; and 7) negligence. The allegations of the Complaint arise out of a lease agreement for a high-end Hancock Park residential property located at 136 Freemont Place, Los Angeles, CA 90005 (the "Premises").

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2020

JOCELYN FRYE, ET AL. VS ROBHANA GROUP INC

(Robhana) and 825 Ajax, LLC (Ajax) demurrer to various causes of action alleged against Robhana — the first cause of action for breach of contract; second, third and sixth causes of action for violations of various implied covenants; and fifth, tenth and thirteenth causes of action for retaliation and constructive eviction — on the grounds that the claims are premised upon a landlord-tenant relationship, which based on the lease agreement attached to the Complaint does not exist with Robhana.

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

NEIGHBORS OF CHASE KNOLLS, ET AL. VS WK CK SHERMAN OAKS VENTURE, ET AL.

Based on the foregoing, the court does not sustain demurrer solely on grounds that the cause of action does not allege actual or constructive eviction. To the extent that Defendant argues that Plaintiff does not state a claim for constructive eviction, this argument is addressed below. As the court does not sustain demurrer on those grounds, it likewise does not sustain demurrer to this cause of action on grounds of a failure to sufficiently allege constructive eviction.

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

EFRAIN CASTANEDA LOPEZ, ET AL. VS U. S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION , AS TRUSTEE FOR THE C- BASS MORTGAGE LOAN ASSET - BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007 -CB1, ET

Fifth Cause of Action, Civil Code section 789.3: SUSTAINED, with Leave to Amend California Civil Code, Section 789.3 states that “[a] landlord shall not with intent to terminate the occupancy under any lease or other tenancy or estate at will, however created, of property used by a tenant as his residence willfully cause, directly or indirectly, the interruption or termination of any utility service furnished the tenant, including, but not limited to, water, heat, light, electricity, gas, telephone, elevator

  • Hearing

    Nov 12, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

BRAGGS VS. THOMPSON

Defendants demur to the cause of action on the ground Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action because “the covenant of quiet enjoyment is not broken until there has been an actual or constructive eviction.” (Clark v. Spiegel (1971) 22 Cal.App.3d 74, 79.) Plaintiffs have not alleged actual or constructive eviction.

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

ALBERT VS GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY III HOLDINGS

., such as protection from actual or constructive eviction, restrictions on termination of tenancy and defendants’ inability to prohibit either listing or selling of their mobile homes. (FAC, ¶¶ 46-53.) Plaintiffs also detail the manner in which the violations of their right to habitable homes violates other statutes or regulations. (FAC, ¶¶ 54-92.) Defendants first argue this breach of statutes claim is duplicative of the prior causes of action.

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2020

HAYK ARAKELYAN ET AL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Meyers (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 770, 777 [holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting amendment of complaint, which originally alleged constructive eviction, to allege retaliatory eviction where the new claim was based on the same general set of facts].) Discussion Plaintiffs represent that since the filing of the original Complaint, Hayk died. (Henriks Decl., ¶ 4.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

RAR2 VILLA MARINA CENTER CA SPE, INC., ET AL. VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Meyers (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 770, 777 [holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting amendment of complaint, which originally alleged constructive eviction, to allege retaliatory eviction where the new claim was based on the same general set of facts].) Although denial is rarely justified, a judge has discretion to deny leave to amend if the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party. (Morgan v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JESSY VELASQUEZ, ET AL. VS A&S PROPERTIES CORPORATION

Constructive Eviction Defendant argues that Plaintiffs allege that they are entitled to penalties for constructive evictions under GMC section 9.30.035 and 9.30.30(j). It appears that Plaintiffs are referring to the Glendale Municipal Code, however, Plaintiffs allege that the property is in the City of Los Angeles such that the Glendale Municipal Code does not apply. The court agrees with Defendant. As alleged, Plaintiffs have alleged no basis for any penalties under the Glendale Municipal Code.

  • Hearing

    Nov 04, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

OKSANA DUTCHAK VS GNM II LTD., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

in violation of California Government Code, Section 12989.1; (8) retaliatory constructive eviction in violation of the Unruh Act; (9) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (10) constructive eviction.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

DERIC WHITE VS PHILIP SCHOEPPNER, ET AL.

Eleventh Cause of Action: Violation of California Civil Code § 1940.2 Like Civil Code § 789.3, discussed above in connection with Plaintiff’s eighth cause of action, Civil Code § 1940.2 prohibits certain actions by landlords “for the purpose of influencing a tenant to vacate a dwelling,” such as by engaging in conduct that violates Penal Code § 484(a).” (Civ. Code § 1940.2(a)(1).) That Penal Code section prohibits theft of personal property. (Penal Code § 484(a).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

DINORAH ECHAVARRIA VS BOB PSZYK, ET AL.

CC § 789.3 Merits A defendant moving for summary judgment/adjudication has met its burden of showing a cause of action has no merit if the defendant can show one or more elements of the plaintiff’s cause of action cannot be established. (CCP 437c(p)(2).) Defendant Pszyk moves for summary judgment on the ground that the claims are defective against him because he sold the property prior to the alleged incident, and the alleged acts involve Panetta and Pacific View Properties.

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JUANA MEJIA, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS CARLOS FLORES, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) negligence, (2) breach of implied warranty of habitability, (3) breach of implied covenant of quiet enjoyment, (4) violation of Civil Code section 1940.2, (5) violation of Civil Code section 789.3, and (6) injunctive relief. The Complaint alleges in pertinent part as follows. Plaintiffs are tenants of a single-family home located at 323 East 93rd Street, Los Angeles, CA 90003 (Property). The Property is presently owned by CAFA and its president Flores.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

DROR EINAV, ET AL. VS RONALD SHISH, ET AL.

Defendants demurrer to the seventh cause of action for constructive eviction on the ground that it is uncertain in the Complaint whether Plaintiffs have actually voluntarily abandoned the property, or whether they still reside there. (Demurrer at p. 4.) Constructive eviction does not happen unless a tenant actually abandons the premises: “There is no constructive eviction if the tenant continues in possession of the premises however much he may be disturbed in the beneficial enjoyment.” (Cunningham v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

FILIPPINI WEALTH MANAGEMENT, INC. V. MAX BARIL, ET AL.

In its first amended complaint (FAC), plaintiff asserts causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) constructive eviction, (3) breach of implied covenant of quiet enjoyment, (4) trespass, (5) intrusion into private affairs, and (6) declaratory relief. Plaintiff asserts only the fourth and fifth causes of action against Meridian.

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 22     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.