What are leases and rental agreements?

Useful Resources for Leases and Rental Agreements

Recent Rulings on Leases and Rental Agreements

101-125 of 10000 results

LUCIA C EARLY VS JOHN D EARLY

Discussion “A lis pendens is a recorded document giving constructive notice that an action has been filed affecting title 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.’ ” (Kirkeby v. Sup. Ct. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 642, 647, internal quotation marks omitted.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

STEPHAN V. BUCHTEL

First, the complaint is not seeking eviction on the ground that defendant failed to pay rent. Therefore, the claimed prevention or delay in performing the contract obligation to pay rent by an irresistible, superhuman cause is irrelevant to the cause of action pled in the complaint. The action is not a Code of Civil Procedure, § 1161(2) cause of action for failure to pay rent.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

THOMAS E. CASTLETON VS OMRI TCHERCHI, ET AL.

With respect to constructive notice, the grantee “is bound to take notice of facts which a reasonable inspection of the land would disclose to him and to make further inquiry when something is visible that would suggest such a course to a prudent person, possessing ordinary faculties.” (Johnson, 122 Cal.App.2d at 74.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

JERKOVICH V. AZZARELLO, ET AL.

Olsher (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1205, 1219-1220 [explaining that “undertaking the eviction of a tenant cannot be considered a minimal burden. The expense of evicting a tenant is not necessarily trivial, and eviction typically results in the unit sitting vacant for some period”].)

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

JANE DOE VS CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, ET AL.

The operative FAC alleges ten causes of action against Defendants: (1) intentional misrepresentation, (2) concealment, (3) false promise, (4) false imprisonment, (5) kidnapping, (6) stalking in violation of California Civil Code § 1708.7, (7) libel in violation of California Civil Code § 45, (8) slander in violation of California Civil Code § 46, (9) constructive invasion of privacy in violation of California Civil Code § 1708.8, (10) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

However, the May 1, 2017 notice was recorded, which provides Plaintiff with constructive and actual knowledge of the Property’s substandard conditions. (Civ. Code § 1213; Citizens for Covenant Compliance v. Anderson (1995) 12 Cal.4th 345, 355.) As the new owner, Plaintiff steps into the former landlord’s shoes. (Kirk Corp. v. First American Title Co. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 785, 809.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ROBERT FRITZ, ET AL. VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY BICYCLE COALITION, ET AL.

Plaintiff alleges LACBA negligently owned/leased/entrusted bicycle, but absent allegations of negligent entrustment – having actual or constructive notice of the unfitness of the riders to whom the involved bikes were entrusted - mere ownership/leasing/entrusting a bicycle to someone does not create a duty to prevent that someone from acting negligently. Nor are there allegations that some failure to manage or maintain a bicycle owned or leased by LACBA caused the subject collision.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

HIPOLITO PAUL CARRANZA VS SPEARS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.

BACKGROUND This is an action arising from Plaintiff’s alleged wrongful termination, alleging the following causes of action: (1) racial discrimination in violation of FEHA; (2) harassment in violation of FEHA; (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (4) failure to maintain an environment free from discrimination, retaliation, and harassment; (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (6) wrongful termination/constructive discharge.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

TRAN VS. CHOLULA

Because the harboring of pets is such an important part of our way of life and because the exclusive possession of rented premises normally is vested in the tenant, we believe that actual knowledge and not mere constructive knowledge is required.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

YANETT MIRANDA, ET AL. VS AVANATH REALTY INC., ET AL.

The Complaint asserts causes of action for: Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability; Negligence; and Nuisance. Defendants now move for an order striking allegations related to punitive and exemplary damages. Legal Standard Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1322(b).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

BATTAGLIA VS RIVERSIDE TRANSIT ANGENCY

In order to impose liability on a common carrier, actual or constructive notice of a dangerous or defective condition must be shown, where the dangerous or defective condition is not created by an affirmative act of the carrier or its agents. (Gray v. City and County of San Francisco (1962) 202 Cal.App.2d 319, 330.) The coach operator admittedly did not inspect the luggage racks for the positioning of the passengers’ baggage. (UMF, ¶ 5.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

HALL VS. MALIN

Existence of a Real Property Claim “ ‘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.]” (Kirkeby v. Superior Court (2004) 33 Cal.4th 642, 647 (“Kirkeby”).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

HECTOR HERNANDEZ VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL.

The operative FAC alleges ten causes of action against Defendants: (1) intentional misrepresentation, (2) concealment, (3) false promise, (4) false imprisonment, (5) kidnapping, (6) stalking in violation of California Civil Code § 1708.7, (7) libel in violation of California Civil Code § 45, (8) slander in violation of California Civil Code § 46, (9) constructive invasion of privacy in violation of California Civil Code § 1708.8, (10) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

B&D FARMS, INC. V. GINGER L. MANKINS, ET AL.

Rather, unjust enrichment is a basis for obtaining restitution based on quasi-contract or imposition of a constructive trust.” (See also Levine v. Blue Shield of Cal. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1138 [although some courts have suggested the existence of a separate cause of action for unjust enrichment, there is no cause of action in California for unjust enrichment].) McKinsey responds that there is a split of authority on the subject; and points to a group of cases that discuss unjust enrichment claims.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

GETHSEMANI CHURCH, CHRISTIAN PENTECOSTAL FOURSQUARE GOSPEL, INC. VS MICHAEL A. GONZALEZ, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

Code section 9412, (4) conversion, (5) constructive trust, (6) declaratory relief, (7) accounting, and (8) violation of Corp. Code section 9631. The Cross-Complaint alleges in pertinent part as follows. Church was formed and created The balance of hardships favors issuance of an injunction. s (entitled in Spanish as “Articles”) on August 26, 1936 and has continuously operated since that date.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

SEAN ROSS PAUL VS TISHMAN SPEYER ARCHSTONE-SMITH ET AL

BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed the operative Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) alleging causes of action for: (1) breach of express and implied contract; (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing/breach of express/implied warranty of habitability; (3) fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and concealment; (4) negligence—premises liability; (5) negligence, negligent supervision, and negligent management (owner and manager); (6) negligence; (7) violation of Bus. & Prof.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

DONGHONG DENG, ET AL. VS EAST WEST BANK, ET AL.

First Through Third Causes of Action (i.e., Fraudulent and Deceit, Negligent Misrepresentation and Constructive Fraud, Respectively) “The essential allegations of an action for fraud are a misrepresentation, knowledge of its falsity, intent to defraud, justifiable reliance, and resulting damage.” (Roberts v. Ball, Hunt, Hart, Brown & Baerwitz (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 104, 109.) “Constructive fraud is a unique species of fraud applicable only to a fiduciary or confidential relationship.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JENNIFER CAMPOS VS CHINTU SHAH, ET AL.

Demurrer Negligence and Premises Liability Dume argues that as a landlord, it cannot be liable for dog bites on their property absent actual or constructive notice of the dog’s viciousness before the attack and an opportunity to remove the dog before it attacked the victim. (Portillo v. Aiassa (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1134.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

JAMES O ARMOR ET AL VS ANDREW ARCHULETA ET AL

Plaintiff’s complaint includes causes of action for: Breach of Contract (Archuleta, Woodgeard, Farcas); Breach of Warranty (Archuleta, Woodgeard, Farcas); Constructive Fraud (Archuleta, Woodgeard, Farcas); Fraud (Archuleta, Woodgeard, Farcas); BPC §17200 (Archuleta, Woodgeard, Farcas); Conversion (Archuleta, Woodgeard, Farcas, Archuleta LLC); Declaratory Relief (Archuleta, Woodgeard, Farcas, Archuleta LLC); Contractor’s Bond (Archuleta, Wesco); Contractor’s Bond (Archuleta, Business Insurance); Contractor

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

IN RE: JOHAN VAN WILPE AND MARIA VAN WILPE TRUST AND TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY

Petition for Orders (1) to Provide Copy of Terms of Trust, (2) Determining Terms of Trust, (3) Quieting Title to Property in Names of Decedents, (4) Staying Eviction, (5) Enjoining Sale Pending Determination of Issues, and (6) Protecting Interest ************************* This matter has been continued seven times from 2/26/20. At the hearing on 10/29/20, the matter was continued to 12/2/20 for Tonny Van Wilpe to obtain new counsel. Has he done so? What is the status of the settlement reached on 2/4/20?

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

CREAMER VS. ATCHISSON

Plaintiffs, a husband, wife and child, sued defendants over habitability claims arising in early 2017. Defendants posit that an unwaivable conflict of interest has arisen among the plaintiffs because, years after this lawsuit was filed, one of them is alleged to have committed crimes against the other two. The possibility that Ms. Creamer may one day be found guilty of a crime against her husband Mr.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

DESERT EQUITIES GROUP VS SANCHEZ REYES

An order or judgment may be void as a matter of law for many reasons including lack of actual or constructive notice of proceedings or lack of or improper service of summons. (Lovato v. Sante Fe, Int’l Corp. (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 549, 553.) Plaintiff’s opposition fails to provide any evidence that defendants were served at the proper address and defendants provide evidence that they did not reside at the service address.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

SHELDON WIDUCH VS ANCHETA HOLDINGS LLC,, ET AL.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS: Plaintiff tenant alleges that Defendant landlord engaged in numerous acts of threatening Plaintiff and retaliating against Plaintiff, culminating in wrongful eviction, for making complaints to the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety about the illegal conversion of Plaintiff’s rental unit, habitability concerns, and excess rent payment despite the Rent Stabilization Ordinance.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

PROVIDENCE INDUSTRIES LLC VS LULAROE LLC

It asserts seven causes of action for: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Breach of Guaranty; (3) Goods Sold and Delivered; (4) Open Book Account; (5) Fraud in the Inducement; (6) Avoidance of Fraudulent Transfers (Actual Intent); and (7) Avoidance of Fraudulent Transfers (Constructive Intent). LLR filed a Cross-Complaint alleging that MyDyer and its principal, Daniel S.

  • 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

  « 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.