The elements for a breach of contract cause of action are:

1. the contract;
2. plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance;
3. defendant’s breach; and
4. resulting damages.

(Hale v. Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1373, 1387.)

In order to plead the first element—a written contract—a plaintiff must set forth the contract verbatim by attaching it to the complaint, or plead the contract’s legal effect by alleging the substance of its relevant terms. (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 307.)

“In connection with the allegation of a breach of a written instrument, a plaintiff must plead that a defendant entered into the written agreement with plaintiff.” (Coles v. Glaser (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 384, 391.)

“[I]n California, the obligations of the guarantor are strictly construed.” (Saloman v. Cawston Ostrich Farm (1919) 43 Cal.App.465, 469.) “Several documents concerning the same subject and made as part of the same transaction will be construed together even if the documents were not executed contemporaneously.” (Myers Building Industries, Ltd. v. Interface Technology, Inc. (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 949, 967.) Where a breach of a written agreement or instrument is alleged, a plaintiff must plead “a contract; its performance or excuse for nonperformance; breach; and damages.” (Stockton Mortgage, Inc. v. Tope (2014) 233 Cal.App.4th 437, 453.)

Role of Court

“[T]he court must conduct a hearing out of the presence of the jury and permit the parties to introduce conditionally or subject to a motion to strike all available evidence on the issue of the meaning to be given to the written instrument.” (Equitable Life Assurance Society v. Berry (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 832, 838.)

“The jury is involved only if the court determines that:

1. the wording of the instrument is reasonably susceptible of the interpretation contended for by the proponent of the extrinsic evidence,
2. the extrinsic evidence is relevant to prove the proposed meaning, and
3. the credibility of the proponent's parol evidence is disputed.”

(Id.)

The Court finds that the economy and interests of justice favor bifurcation, particularly since if the Court concludes that a writing is not reasonably susceptible to differing meanings and there are no questions of ambiguity, then the matter need not be submitted to a jury. (Id. at 822.)

Wrongful Eviction

Every lease includes a covenant of quiet possession and enjoyment. (Cal. Civ. Code §1927.) The covenant is breached upon actual or constructive eviction of the tenant. (Erlach v. Sierra Asset Servicing, LLC (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1299-1300.)

Constructive eviction occurs where intolerable conditions render the premises so unfit or so interfere with beneficial enjoyment of the unit that the tenant is forced to vacate.

Recoverable damages include whatever amounts are necessary to compensate the tenant for detriment proximately caused by the ‘eviction’ or likely to result therefrom—generally, the value of the tenant’s unexpired term, plus moving costs and consequential mental anguish, pain and physical injury. In an appropriate case, punitive damages are also available. (Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 903, 925-926.)

To plead a cause of action for wrongful constructive eviction, Plaintiffs must plead facts showing the following elements:

1. Landlord’s
   1. acts or omissions; or
   2. any disturbance or interference with tenant’s possession; and
2. causing
   1. substantial portion of premises to be unfit for the purposes for which leased, or
   2. tenant to be deprived of the beneficial enjoyment or use of the premises for a substantial time.

(Groh v. Kover’s Bull Pen, Inc. (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 611, 614.)

Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability

A warranty of habitability is implied in all residential rental agreements. (Green v. Superior Court (1974) 10 Cal.3d 616, 629.) The implied warranty imposes upon the landlord the obligation to maintain leased dwellings in a habitable condition throughout the term of the lease. However, landlords are not required to ensure their premises are in a perfect, aesthetically pleasing condition and, in most cases, substantial compliance with applicable code standards materially affecting health and safety will satisfy a landlord’s duties under the implied warranty of habitability. (Id., at pp. 637-638).

Thus, the standard for breach is a substantial defect or statutory noncompliance. Whether the defect is substantial or de minimis is decided on a case by case basis. (Hall v. Municipal Court (1974) 10 Cal.3d 641, 644.) Further, the implied warranty of habitability does not hold landlords accountable for defects of which they were unaware and which would not have been disclosed by a reasonable inspection. Thus, the landlord’s actual or constructive notice of the alleged uninhabitable condition is an essential prerequisite to an actionable claim. (Peterson v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1185, 1205-1206.)