Statutory Provision

Cal. Civ. Code Secs. 789.3 concerns Acts by landlord with intent to terminate occupancy and relates only to residential leases. It states in relevant part:

1. 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, or refrigeration, whether or not the utility service is under the control of the landlord.
2. In addition, 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 or her residence, willfully:
   1. Prevent the tenant from gaining reasonable access to the property by changing the locks or using a bootlock or by any other similar method or device;
   2. Remove outside doors or windows; or
   3. Remove from the premises the tenant's personal property, the furnishings, or any other items without the prior written consent of the tenant, except when done pursuant to the procedure set forth in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 1980) of Title 5 of Part 4 of Division 3. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to prevent the lawful eviction of a tenant by appropriate legal authorities, nor shall anything in this subdivision apply to occupancies defined by subdivision (b) of Section 1940.
3. Any landlord who violates this section shall be liable to the tenant in a civil action for all of the following:
   1. Actual damages of the tenant.
   2. An amount not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) for each day or part thereof the landlord remains in violation of this section. In determining the amount of such award, the court shall consider proof of such matters as justice may require; however, in no event shall less than two hundred fifty dollars ($250) be awarded for each separate cause of action. Subsequent or repeated violations, which are not committed contemporaneously with the initial violation, shall be treated as separate causes of action and shall be subject to a separate award of damages.
4. In any action under subdivision (c) the court shall award reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing party. In any such action the tenant may seek appropriate injunctive relief to prevent continuing or further violation of the provisions of this section during the pendency of the action. The remedy provided by this section is not exclusive and shall not preclude the tenant from pursuing any other remedy which the tenant may have under any other provision of law.

(Civ. Code § 789.3)

Damages Available for Violation of Statute

“The damages recoverable for wrongful eviction, actual or constructive, include whatever amounts are necessary to compensate the tenant for the detriment proximately caused by the eviction or likely to result therefrom....[I]f the tenant wrongfully evicted elects to sue in tort, damages may be awarded for mental anguish and pain or physical injury; exemplary damages may also be recovered when the landlord’s conduct justifies the award.” (Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 903, 926.)

Court's Discretion Regarding Penalties

Kinney v. Vaccari (1980) 27 Cal.3d 348, involved a landlord’s willful failure to pay a utility bill. Distinguishing “Hale v. Morgan (1978) 22 Cal.3d 388, 397, 404 where the court declared that "section 789.3 permits the assessment of arbitrary, excessive and unreasonable penalties" and in certain situations the imposition of the $100 daily penalty can be "clearly, positively, and unmistakably' unconstitutional, " the Kinney court stated, “as will appear, the present action is not such a case.” (Id. at 352.)

The court went on to state in relevant part:

“An equally notable aspect of the Hale opinion...is its recognition that in the proper factual context application of the penalty formula of section 789.3 could withstand constitutional challenge: ‘The imposition of the $100 daily penalty over a limited period may indeed, in a given case, be a perfectly legitimate means of encouraging compliance with law. Furthermore, there are doubtless some situations in which very large punitive assessments are both proportioned to the landlord's misconduct and necessary to achieve the penalty's deterrent purposes.’ (Hale at 404.) We are faced here with such a case; indeed, if the penalty provided in section 789.3 is not justified under these circumstances, it is difficult to conceive of a case in which it would be applicable.”

”The distinctions between this case and Hale begin with the landlord's apparent motivations for his actions. Here, unlike Hale, the landlord had little or no provocation for his conduct; some of the plaintiffs were tenants of long standing, having lived in the units for several years. Although two tenants were in arrears when the utilities were terminated, the total amount of rental payments received in January was nearly twice that owed to the gas company. Furthermore, of the $925 then collected, some $300 was diverted by Junior for his personal use. There was also undisputed testimony at trial that Junior had informed at least one tenant that he would reinstate utility service if this lawsuit was dropped. Thus it is clear that Junior's failure to pay the utility bill was not occasioned by lack of funds, but rather by his determination to terminate plaintiffs' occupancy. Also, in addition to the gas service Junior disconnected the electrical service to plaintiffs' premises, temporarily depriving them of that utility as well.” (Kinney, supra, 27 Cal.3d at 353.)

Punative Penalties

Remedies under Civil Code section 789 are “not exclusive” and do not “preclude the tenant from pursuing any other remedy which the tenant may have.” Accordingly, punitive damages are available. (Fernandes v. Singh (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 932, 944.)