What are leases and rental agreements?

Useful Resources for Leases and Rental Agreements

Recent Rulings on Leases and Rental Agreements

51-75 of 10000 results

DENNIS LUNA VS FERNANDO GAYTAN, ET AL.

procedural history Plaintiff filed the Complaint on March 25, 2020, alleging five causes of action: Breach of contract Breach of fiduciary duty Intentional misrepresentation Unjust enrichment Constructive eviction On August 14, 2020, Luna filed the FAC alleging the same five causes of action and added Vanessa Luna Bishop as a Plaintiff. On September 17, 2020, Defendants filed the instant Special Motion to Strike. On December 29, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an Opposition.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CHRISTIAN FUHRER, ET AL. VS BEVERLY HILLS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

On October 9, 2019, Plaintiffs Christian Fuhrer and L.F. through his guardian ad litem Christiana Fuhrer (“Plaintiffs”), filed a third amended complaint containing six causes of action for (1) violation of privacy under the California Constitution and California Civil Code section 1708, (2) constructive discharge, (3) defamation, (4) negligence, (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (6) negligent infliction of emotional distress.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SANTOS SALVATIERRA, ET AL. VS JOSEPH P MARSICO

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS: Plaintiffs are tenants who allege that their landlord breached the warranty of habitability and the covenant of quiet enjoyment, among other claims. Defendant Joseph P. Marsico moves for terminating sanctions or, in the alternative, for contempt. TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Joseph P. Marsico’s motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED. Defendant’s alternative motion for contempt is DENIED AS MOOT. The complaint is hereby ordered stricken.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

530 6TH STREET, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS CORPORATE COLOCATION INCORPORATED, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

On March 27, 2020, the Los Angeles City Council passed Ordinance No. 186585, as amended on May 7, 2020 in Ordinance No. 186606 (the “Eviction Moratorium Ordinance” or the “Ordinance”), which codified the temporary prohibition of certain commercial evictions enacted in Mayor Eric Garcetti’s Public Order. (RFN, Ex. 1.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

JASDEEP KOCHAR VS GALINA GERASSIMENKO

“‘A lis pendens is a recorded document giving constructive notice that an action has been filed affecting title to or right to possession of the real property described in the notice.’ [Citation.] A lis pendens may be filed by any party in an action who asserts a ‘real property claim.’ [Citation.] Section 405.4 defines a ‘“Real property claim”’ as ‘the cause or causes of action in a pleading which would, if meritorious, affect (a) title to, or the right to possession of, specific real property . . . .’

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

TORRES V. DIVINE MERCY INC.

On or about August 21, 2018, Defendants terminated plaintiffs’ services, and later pursued their eviction from Lompoc Ranch.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

MARYAM GHUKASIAN VS AEGIS SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, A STOCK INSURER, ET AL.

The Policy also includes the following exclusions: (1) Intentional Acts Exclusion, which excludes coverage for any act committed by Plaintiff which is expected or intended, even if the harm or injury caused was not expected or intended; (2) Wrongful Entry Exclusion, which excludes coverage for damages arising out of the wrongful entry, eviction, or other invasion of the right of private occupancy; and (3) Negligent Supervision Exclusion, which excludes coverage for damages arising out of Plaintiff’s failure

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

VICTOR AVALOS, ET AL. VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, A PUBLIC ENTITY , ET AL.

‘Three essential elements must be present to raise a negligent act to the level of wilful misconduct: (1) actual or constructive knowledge of the peril to be apprehended, (2) actual or constructive knowledge that injury is a probable, as opposed to a possible, result of the danger, and (3) conscious failure to act to avoid the peril.’” (Carlsen v. Koivumaki (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 879, 895.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

PAULA QUEZADA VS ROGELIO QUEZADA, ET AL.

The Court notes that Plaintiff references constructive fraud in her opposition. Although related it is different from a “standard” fraud claim because it requires a fiduciary or confidential relationship. Plaintiff must clarify whether she intends to allege one or both types of fraud. The Court also finds that FAC is vague because Plaintiff has not alleged the exact date of the breach. Motion to Strike: MOOT A claim for punitive damages requires allegation of oppression, malice, or fraud.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

STEPHEN ALAN GREEN VS AXIALL CORPORATION, ET AL

The Court finds that based on Defendant’s evidence, more than one reasonable, legitimate inference on the issue of Plaintiff’s actual or constructive knowledge may be drawn.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

FRANCES KENTON VS CITY OF CALABASAS

Actual or Constructive Notice of Any Alleged Defect In connection with Plaintiff’s cause of action for premises liability, Defendants argue they had no actual notice of any alleged defect with the kickboxing bag. The elements of¿a premises liability and¿negligence¿cause of action are the same:¿duty, breach, causation and damages.¿ (Castellon v. U.S.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

EDYTHE A. WOODS, ET AL. VS RONILA, LLC., ET AL.

Demurrer (Ward Defendants) – Third Cause of Action for Breach of Warranty of Habitability (Violation of Civil Code § 1942.4) Ward Defendants demur to the third cause of action for breach of warranty of habitability (violation of Civil Code section 1942.4). Plaintiffs assert three different breach of warranty of habitability claims (first, second, and third causes of action) on three different theories.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BRANDIN HARRIS VS PUFFY DELIVERY, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

In the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Plaintiff alleges nine causes of action: (1) violation of the California Equal Pay Act; (2) sex discrimination; (3) race discrimination; (4) hostile work environment harassment; (5) failure to prevent harassment or discrimination; (6) wrongful constructive discharge in violation of public policy; (7) promissory fraud; (8) violation of Labor Code § 970; and (9) failure to reimburse business expenses.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

EGAL SHAHBAZ , ET AL. VS AIDEN SHENANDOAH, LLC , ET AL.

Here, the Court notes that Plaintiffs assert causes of action for breach of month-to-month lease, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, wrongful eviction, disability discrimination, breach of the implied warranty of habitability, breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, negligence, wrongful use of civil proceedings, and fraud. Thus, Plaintiffs are seeking both contract and tort damages, but the Complaint sets forth no allegation of Plaintiffs’ contract damages.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

CHRISTINE PETRIKAS IRELAND ET AL VS CHARLES DUNN COMPANY INC

As to the eighteenth cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty (to the extent based on fraud or mistake), the nineteenth cause of action for constructive fraud, and the twenty-first cause of action for fraud, a three-year statute of limitations applies. (CCP § 338(d).) As to any cause of action based on fraud or mistake, the “cause of action is not deemed to have accrued until the discovery, by the aggrieved party, of the facts constituting the fraud or mistake.” (CCP § 338(d).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

REBECCA BRAND V. MIMI BRAND, ET AL.

Plaintiff refused to vacate the residence or return any of the LLC property and on January 17, 2020, plaintiff filed her complaint to quiet title to the Property and for constructive trust. On March 12, 2020, defendant answered the complaint and filed a cross-complaint against plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2021

OLIVIA BARROWS, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS JAMES IVEY,AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

Art Institute of California (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 986, 1021.) 5th Cause of Action: Wrongful Constructive Termination in Violation of Public Policies Defendant relies on the prior arguments regarding the lack of any adverse employment thereby supporting a finding of constructive termination. “Constructive discharge occurs when the employer's conduct effectively forces an employee to resign.

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CARLO LLC VS 4518 HOLLYWOOD LLC

Joe had no actual or constructive notice of the entry of the Court’s order granting Defendant’s judgment on the pleadings, and (3) a legally adequate explanation as to why Ms. Joe failed to timely file a notice of real party in interest or otherwise appear in the case. It is so ordered. Dated: January , 2021 Hon. Jon R.

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2021

ABBEY VS VILLA DE AMORE CATERING INC

Harney (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1161, 1623.) 11COA and 12COA (Constructive Trust): The Demurrer is OVERRULED. Plaintiffs allege a claim for conversion and that they are entitled to a specific amount of money back from Defendants who are not entitled to keep the deposits paid to them as the contract became unenforceable by impossibility. As such, Plaintiffs sufficiently state a claim for constructive trust.

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2021

MARIA DE LOS ANGELES MEDINA VS STRUNZO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL.

On July 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint for Declaratory Relief, Fraud, Accounting/Constructive Trust, Negligence/Breach of Implied Covenant of good Faith, Unjust Enrichment, Specific Performance, Unfair Competition, Quiet Title, and Injunctive Relief.

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

T ROE ET AL VS CENTINELA VALLEY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

Plaintiff states that mere constructive knowledge is sufficient.

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2021

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

    Jan 11, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PHANPHEN CHANACHIT VS PORNPANAWAN WONGSAROD

On October 7, 2020, Plaintiff Phanphen Chanachit commenced this action against Defendant Pornpanawan Wogsarod for (1) quiet title; (2) breach of oral contract; (3) constructive trust; (4) conversion; (5) unjust enrichment; and (6) declaratory relief. On October 22, 2020, Plaintiff filed a notice of lis pendens. On November 23, 2020, Defendant filed the instant motion to strike portions of the complaint that relate to punitive damages, treble damages, and attorneys’ fees. ANALYSIS: I.

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

THOMAS J MEZA, ET AL. VS BASILE & ASSOCIATES, ET AL.

However, Plaintiffs also allege that “Defendants Magnum Property Investments LLC had an actual and constructive notice to plaintiffs’ continuing claim to the property that is the subject matter of this action.” (Id.) Defendant contends that this allegation is conclusory and implausible because there is no way that Defendant could have known of Plaintiffs’ ongoing dispute with their lender. Whether Defendant had such knowledge is an issue for the fact finder, and requires evidentiary analysis.

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

PHANPHEN CHANACHIT VS PORNPANAWAN WONGSAROD

On October 7, 2020, Plaintiff Phanphen Chanachit commenced this action against Defendant Pornpanawan Wogsarod for (1) quiet title; (2) breach of oral contract; (3) constructive trust; (4) conversion; (5) unjust enrichment; and (6) declaratory relief. On October 22, 2020, Plaintiff filed a notice of lis pendens. On November 23, 2020, Defendant filed the instant motion to strike portions of the complaint that relate to punitive damages, treble damages, and attorneys’ fees. ANALYSIS: I.

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.