The elements for a breach of contract cause of action are:
(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.)
“[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:
(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.)
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:
(Groh v. Kover’s Bull Pen, Inc. (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 611, 614.)
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.)
procedural history Plaintiffs filed the Complaint on December 31, 2019, alleging nine causes of action: Tortious breach of warranty of habitability Breach of warranty of habitability (statute) Breach of warranty of habitability (contract) Breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment Unlawful collection of rent and excessive collection of rent Failure to pay relocation assistance Violation of LAMC 151.31 Wrongful eviction Unlawful business practices in violation of B&P Code § 1700 et seq.
Jan 04, 2021
Real Property
other
Los Angeles County, CA
“Notice in this context can be constructive, it need not be actual.” (Bridges v. Mt. San Jacinto Community College Dist. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 104, 116.) “To have constructive notice, a person must have notice or knowledge of the circumstances, ‘which, upon reasonable inquiry, would lead to that particular fact.’ ” (612 South LLC v. Laconic Limited Partnership (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1278.) Defend Our Waterfront v. State Lands Com. (Defend Our Waterfront) (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 570 is instructive.
Jan 04, 2021
Administrative
Writ
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff additionally alleges that although she complained about this conduct, she was retaliated against for making these complaints, ultimately leading to her constructive discharge on November 12, 2019. On June 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).
Jan 04, 2021
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
procedural history Plaintiffs filed the Complaint on January 28, 2020, alleging six causes of action: Breach of statutory warranty of habitability Breach of implied warranty of habitability Breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment Constructive eviction Negligence Intentional infliction of emotional distress On August 7, 2020, Solis filed the present Motion to Strike Portions of the Complaint. No Opposition has been filed.
Jan 04, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
There must be actual or constructive knowledge of the existence of the right to which the person is entitled. [Citation.] The burden is on the party claiming a waiver to prove it by evidence that does not leave the matter doubtful or uncertain and the burden must be satisfied by clear and convincing evidence that does not leave the matter to speculation." Kelly v. William Morrow & Co. (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 1625, 1635; see also CACI 336. D.
Jan 04, 2021
Contract
Breach
San Diego County, CA
Seventh Cause of Action: Constructive Fraud as to LAUSD Civil¿Code section 1573 provides that¿constructive fraud¿is any breach of duty where a defendant, “without an actually fraudulent intent, gains an advantage to the person in fault, or any one¿claiming under him, by misleading another to his prejudice, or to the prejudice of any one¿claiming under him.”¿Constructive fraud¿is also any “act or omission as the law specially declares to be fraudulent.” (Cal.¿Civ.
Dec 31, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
The second ground for eviction is Plaintiff’s contention that Defendant changed the locks without providing a new key to Plaintiff. As Defendant does not attack or even mention this ground for eviction, the Court cannot grant the motion to strike this eviction justification. Similarly, to the extent that the motion seeks to strike the entire complaint, it fails to provide a basis for such broad relief because the motion leaves entirely unchallenged one of the asserted grounds for eviction.
Dec 30, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiffs also allege that Defendant “conspired with, aided, abetted and/or incited” Student by allowing him access to vulnerable students despite having actual or constructive knowledge of his conduct, thereby ratifying or abetting the abuse. (Id. at ¶ 47.) None of this alleges facts showing a business, service, or professional relationship existed between Doe and Student where Student was uniquely situated to exercise coercion or leverage over Doe.
Dec 30, 2020
Employment
Discrimination/Harass
Los Angeles County, CA
Consequently, a public entity is only liable for a dangerous condition of property if it either creates the condition or has actual or constructive notice of the condition. (Gov Code §835(b).) A public entity had actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition if it had actual knowledge of the existence of the condition and knew or should have known of its dangerous character. (Gov. Code § 835.2(a).)
Dec 29, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
condition of its property if the plaintiff establishes that the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury, that the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition, that the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred, and that either: [¶] (a) A negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or [¶] (b) The public entity had actual or constructive
Dec 29, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
condition of its property if the plaintiff establishes that the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury, that the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition, that the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred, and that either: (a) A negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or (b) The public entity had actual or constructive
Dec 28, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
., Sean Cohen, and Mehran Frozenfar, asserting causes of action for: 1) Breach of Contract; 2) Constructive Fraud; 3) Actual Fraud; 4) Conversion; 5) Unjust Enrichment; 6) Slander of Title; 7) Cancellation of Instruments; 8) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; 9) Violation of Business & Professions Code §17200; 10) Quiet Title; and 11) Declaratory Relief. Defendant Allstate Realty Group Inc. now seeks leave to file a cross-complaint as and against Plaintiff.
Dec 28, 2020
Real Property
Quiet Title
Los Angeles County, CA
On March 12, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants Joshua Hamrell and Lira Funding Partners, LLC asserting causes of action for (1) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (2) Waste of Corporate Assets; (3) Aiding and Abetting; (4) Conversion; (5) Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; and (6) Constructive Fraud. [Tentative] Ruling Defendant Hamrell and Lira Funding Partners, LLC’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED.
Dec 28, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Because a property owner is not the insurer of the safety of its guests, the owner’s actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition is key to establishing liability. (Hall v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1134, 1139; Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200, 1206.) Defendant proffers the surveillance footage of Plaintiff’s fall. The surveillance footage shows that Plaintiff fell at 3:13 p.m. (Notice of Lodgment of Evidence, Exh. #8.)
Dec 28, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
BACKGROUND Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) breach of warranty of habitability; (2) breach of statutory warranty of habitability; (3) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment; (4) negligence; (5) violation of Civ. Code § 1942.4; and (6) private nuisance.
Dec 24, 2020
Real Property
Landlord Tenant
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff contends “ ‘[w]here no duty is imposed by law to make inquiry, and where, under the circumstances, a prudent man would not be put on inquiry, the mere fact that means of knowledge are open and not availed of does not operate to give constructive notice of the facts.’ ” (Baker v. Beech Aircraft Corp. (1974) 39 Cal. App. 3d 315, 322.) Plaintiff cites Prudential Home Mortgage Co. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal. App. 4th 1236 to support their contention.
Dec 24, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
On April 8, 2019, Brian filed a cross-complaint alleging ten causes of actions: (1) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (2) Breach of Contract; (3) Declaratory Relief; (4) Removal of Drake Kennedy as Director; (5) Financial Elder Abuse; (6) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; (7) Negligent Interference with Economic Advantage; (8) Quantum Meruit; (9) Constructive Trust and (10) Declaratory Relief.
Dec 24, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Issue No.6: Ninth Cause of Action Constructive trust and accounting are not independent causes of action but are merely types of remedies. (Batt v. City and County of San Francisco (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 65, 82.) The opposition fails to address Defendant’s argument that the imposition of a constructive trust and an accounting is not an independent cause of action and the Court finds that Plaintiff has conceded to Defendant’s argument on this point under Moulton Niguel Water Dist. v.
Dec 23, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges causes of action for (1) Violation of Unruh Civil Rights Act, (2) sexual harassment, (3)”gender violence/battery of Santos”, (4) sexual battery of Downing, (5) breach of fiduciary duty- constructive fraud, (6) [erroneously labeled seventh] tortious interference with contractual relations, (7) [erroneously labeled eighth] conversion, (8) [erroneously labeled ninth] intentional infliction of emotional distress, (9) [erroneously labeled tenth] negligent infliction of emotional distress
Dec 23, 2020
Employment
Discrimination/Harass
Los Angeles County, CA
After two years of exemplary performance, the plaintiff was terminated and unable to find a job, The trial court sustained the defendant’s demurrer without leave to amend but the Court of Appeals found (and the Supreme Court affirmed) that the plaintiff sufficiently alleged a cause of action for fraud and that fraud recovery would only be precluded where the result of the employer’s misrepresentation was indistinguishable from an ordinary constructive wrongful termination (as to prevent duplicate recovery for both
Dec 23, 2020
Marin County, CA
Fourth Cause of Action: Wrongful Eviction “A ‘landlord is not liable for a breach of the implied covenant [of quiet enjoyment] or a constructive eviction when he wrongfully commences an eviction proceeding in good faith, even though the tenant vacates the premises in response to the wrongful notice to quit.’ ” (Nativi v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 261, 312, quoting 7 Miller & Starr, Cal. Real Estate (3d ed.) § 19:159, p. 504.)
Dec 23, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
App. 3d 278 (Aweeka) do not support Plaintiffs’ contention in that the two cases provide that punitive damages are recoverable under wrongful or constructive eviction claims. The Complaint does not allege claims for wrongful or constructive eviction. The two punitive damages claims in the third and fourth COAs and Prayer pg. 18:13 are not properly alleged and the motion to strike is persuasive.
Dec 22, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
BACKGROUND Plaintiffs’ operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) arises from their alleged tenancy and wrongful eviction from a property located at 336 North Ogden Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90036 (the “Subject Property”), alleging cause of action for: (1) violation of Civ. Code § 789.3; (2) forcible entry and detainer; (3) wrongful eviction; and (4) violation of Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance.
Dec 22, 2020
Employment
Discrimination/Harass
Los Angeles County, CA
App. 3d 278 (Aweeka) do not support Plaintiffs’ contention in that the two cases provide that punitive damages are recoverable under wrongful or constructive eviction claims. The Complaint does not allege claims for wrongful or constructive eviction. The two punitive damages claims in the third and fourth COAs and Prayer pg. 18:13 are not properly alleged and the motion to strike is persuasive.
Dec 22, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THE EVICTION MORATORIUM DOES OR DOES NOT APPLY TO THESE PARTIES ARE BASED ON FACTUAL DETERMINATIONS WHICH CANNOT BE MADE AS A MATTER OF LAW AT THE TIME OF DEMURRER.
Dec 22, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.