“Civil Code section 1940.2 makes it unlawful for a landlord to commit certain specified acts “for the purpose of influencing a tenant to vacate a dwelling.” (Erlach v. Sierra Asset Servicing, LLC (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1300-1 citing Civ.Code, Sec. 1940.2(a).) “The purpose of Civil Code section 1940.2 is to prohibit a landlord's use of ‘constructive’ self-help eviction techniques (Friedman et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Landlord–Tenant, supra, ¶7:42, at 7–14), such as theft, extortion, interference with a tenant's quiet enjoyment, or trespass ‘for the purpose of influencing a tenant to vacate a dwelling.’” (Erlach, supra, citing Civ.Code, Sec. 1940.2(a).)
Unlawful acts for purpose of influencing tenant to vacate:
To assert a cause of action for violation of Civ. Code Sec. 1940.2, plaintiff must allege that lessor unlawfully influenced lessee to vacate a dwelling. (Civ. Code Sec. 1940.2.) One such method listed under Section 1940.2 includes the use, or threaten use, of force, willful threats, or menacing conduct constituted a course of conduct that interferes with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises that would create an apprehension of harm in a reasonable person. (Id. at 1940.2(a)(3).)
procedural history Plaintiffs filed the original Complaint on March 11, 2019, alleging five causes of action: Tortious breach of the warranty of habitability Negligence Nuisance Violation of Los Angeles Municipal Code and Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance Civil Code § 1940.2 On November 30, Plaintiffs filed the FAC, alleging the same give causes of action. On October 5, 2020, the Defendants filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
Real Property
Landlord Tenant
Los Angeles County, CA
Code § 1940.2(a)(3)). While Spinks listed a number of acts that could qualify as breach, the court did not state or even suggest this was a comprehensive list. Spinks does not support Defendant’s contention that Plaintiffs must plead an actual or constructive eviction or Defendant’s attempt to perform an actual or constructive eviction to state a claim for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment. See Mot. 6.
Real Property
Landlord Tenant
Los Angeles County, CA
In addition, defendants contend that plaintiff fails to allege a violation of Civil Code § 1940.2. Although the caption of plaintiff’s complaint suggests that her fifth cause of action for “Retaliatory Acts” is based on “CCC Sec. 1940.2 and 1942.5,” the actual allegations of the Complaint make clear that plaintiff’s fifth cause of action is based solely on retaliatory acts in violation of section 1942.5. (Compare Compl. at p. 1 with Compl. ¶¶ 56-67.)
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
Eleventh Cause of Action: Violation of California Civil Code § 1940.2 Like Civil Code § 789.3, discussed above in connection with Plaintiff’s eighth cause of action, Civil Code § 1940.2 prohibits certain actions by landlords “for the purpose of influencing a tenant to vacate a dwelling,” such as by engaging in conduct that violates Penal Code § 484(a).” (Civ. Code § 1940.2(a)(1).) That Penal Code section prohibits theft of personal property. (Penal Code § 484(a).)
Real Property
Landlord Tenant
Los Angeles County, CA
The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) negligence, (2) breach of implied warranty of habitability, (3) breach of implied covenant of quiet enjoyment, (4) violation of Civil Code section 1940.2, (5) violation of Civil Code section 789.3, and (6) injunctive relief. The Complaint alleges in pertinent part as follows. Plaintiffs are tenants of a single-family home located at 323 East 93rd Street, Los Angeles, CA 90003 (Property). The Property is presently owned by CAFA and its president Flores.
Real Property
other
Los Angeles County, CA
The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed on June 15, 2020 and asserts causes of action for (1) breach of lease, (2) breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment, (3) fraud – failure to disclose, (4) fraud – false promise, (5) negligent misrepresentation, (6) negligence, (7) violation of Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance, and (8) violation of Civil Code section 1940.2.
Real Property
other
Los Angeles County, CA
Fifth Cause of Action (Violation of Civil Code § 1940.2—Menacing Conduct); Sixth Cause of Action (Violation of Civil Code § 1942.5—Retaliation); Seventh Cause of Action (Assault); Eighth Cause of Action (Battery). These causes of action are asserted against Defendants Michelle Murphy, as trustee and as an individual and Chris Leon. The Because a trust cannot be sued, the trustee is the real party in interest to defend on the trust’s behalf. (Portico Management Group, LLC v.
Real Property
other
Los Angeles County, CA
Ninth Cause of Action (Landlord Harassment) Civil Code section 1940.2 provides: (a) It is unlawful for a landlord to do any of the following for the purpose of influencing a tenant to vacate a dwelling: (1) Engage in conduct that violates subdivision (a) of Section 484 of the Penal Code . (2) Engage in conduct that violates Section 518 of the Penal Code .
Real Property
Landlord Tenant
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging causes of action for: (1) retaliation in violation of California Civil Code, Sections 1942.5(a) and 1942.5(d); (2) breach of the implied warranty of habitability; (3) violation of California Civil Code, Section 1940.2—covenant of quiet enjoyment; (4) violation of California Civil Code, Section 52.1—Bane Act; (5) breach of common law duty of care, including tortious negligence, negligence per se, and negligent infliction of emotional distress; (6) violation of California
Los Angeles County, CA
.; (4) violation of Civil Code § 1940.2; (5) violation of Civil Code § 789.3; (6) violation of Civil Code § 1942.4; and (7) unlawful and unfair business practices. On November 5, 2019, California Automobile Insurance Company filed an action, case number 19STCV39830, against Defendants Mirna E. Alcantara and Ranulfo Santarriaga for declaratory relief. Specifically, “Plaintiff contends that the policy of insurance it issued to defendant, Mirna E.
Los Angeles County, CA
On December 23, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their complaint against Defendants alleging causes of action for (1) violation of the FEHA, (2) violation of the Unruh Act, (3) intrusion into private affairs, (4) retaliation in violation of Civil Code §§1942.5(a), 1942.5(d), (5) breach of the common law covenant of quiet enjoyment, (6) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment – Civil Code §1940.2, (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”), (8) violation of the Bane Act, (9) breach of common law duty of
Employment
Discrimination/Harass
Los Angeles County, CA
.; (4) violation of Civil Code § 1940.2; (5) violation of Civil Code § 789.3; (6) violation of Civil Code § 1942.4; and (7) unlawful and unfair business practices. On November 5, 2019, Plaintiff California Automobile Insurance Company commenced this action, case number 19STCV39830, against Defendants Mirna E. Alcantara and Ranulfo Santarriaga for declaratory relief. Specifically, “Plaintiff contends that the policy of insurance it issued to defendant, Mirna E.
Los Angeles County, CA
procedural history Plaintiffs filed the original Complaint on March 11, 2019, and the FAC on September 30, 2019, alleging five causes of action: Tortious breach of the warranty of habitability Negligence Nuisance Violation of Los Angeles Municipal Code and Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance Civil Code § 1940.2 On September 6, 2019, Defendants filed the instant Demurrer to the Complaint and Motion to Strike. On September 30, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).
Real Property
Landlord Tenant
Los Angeles County, CA
Procedural History On July 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants for forcible entry; violation of Civil Code section 1940.2 (covenant of quiet enjoyment); IIED; violation of Civil Code section 789.3; violation of Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance; violation of Civil Code section 52.1; breach of warranty of habitability; and unfair business practices. On July 14, 2020, the court granted Plaintiff’s ex parte application for a TRO and for setting an OSC re: preliminary injunction.
Business
Intellectual Property
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging causes of action for: (1) retaliation in violation of California Civil Code, Sections 1942.5(a) and 1942.5(d); (2) breach of the implied warranty of habitability; (3) violation of California Civil Code, Section 1940.2—covenant of quiet enjoyment; (4) violation of California Civil Code, Section 52.1—Bane Act; (5) breach of common law duty of care, including tortious negligence, negligence per se, and negligent infliction of emotional distress; (6) violation of California
Los Angeles County, CA
Code § 1940.2; 4) breach of the common law implied covenant of quiet enjoyment; 6) violation of Civ. Code § 1714; 7) intentional infliction of emotional distress; 8) nuisance; 9) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; 10) violation of Civ. Code §§ 1942.5(a) and (d); 11) violation of Civ. Code § 52.1; 12) demand and collection of excess rent in violation of RSO; and 13) Unfair Business Practices in violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.
Business
Intellectual Property
Los Angeles County, CA
However, neither the complaint nor the motion for preliminary injunction alleges compliance with the conditions set forth in Civil Code, section 1940.2 – particularly Civil Code, section 1940.2 subd. (b)(5) [“A tenant may utilize a clothesline or drying rack in the tenant's private area if all of the following conditions are met: ¶ (5) The tenant has received approval of the clothesline or drying rack, or the type of clothesline or drying rack, from the landlord.”].)
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Fresno County, CA
.; (4) violation of Civil Code § 1940.2; (5) violation of Civil Code § 789.3; (6) violation of Civil Code § 1942.4; and (7) unlawful and unfair business practices. On November 5, 2019, Plaintiff California Automobile Insurance Company commenced this action, case number 19STCV39830, against Defendants Mirna E. Alcantara and Ranulfo Santarriaga for declaratory relief. Specifically, “Plaintiff contends that the policy of insurance it issued to defendant, Mirna E.
Los Angeles County, CA
BACKGROUND On March 26, 2018, Plaintiff Louise Holland (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Dana Carl Dentzel, Paul Dentzel, and Mark Guardinieri for (1) tortious interruption and termination of utility (electricity), (2) tortious interruption and termination of utility (water), (3) tortious violation of Civil Code section 789.3(b), (4) violation of Civil Code section 1940.2, (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (6) negligent infliction of emotional distress, (7) trespass, (8) conversion
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiffs’ first cause of action for violation of Civil Code section 789.3, fourth cause of action for violation of Civil Code section 1940.2, fifth cause of action for violation of the Unfair Competition Law, and sixth cause of action for breach of the warranty of habitability are claims against the landlord. Plaintiffs allege that the owner of the real property was Defendant Menemsha Equity, LLC, a limited liability company. (FAC, ¶¶ 5, 8.)
Solano County, CA
. & Conversion; (4) Violation of Civil Code § 1940.2 (Tenant Harassment); (5) Violation of Los Angeles Municipal Code § 151.00, et seq.; (6) Negligence; (7) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; (8) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (9) Violation of California Civil Code § 1950.5 (Wrongful Retention of Security Deposit); and (10) Violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq. (Unfair Business Practices).
Los Angeles County, CA
Gabriel, Sanaa Gabriel, and Does 1 through 25, alleging: (1) tenant harassment in violation of Civil Code section 1940.2; (2) retaliatory eviction in violation of Civil Code section 1942.5; (3) wrongful eviction in violation of L.A.M.C. section 151.09; (4) assault; (5) battery; and (6) intentional infliction of emotion distress. On November 21, 2019, Plaintiff served Dr. Ibrahin with a Deposition Subpoena for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents and Things. Dr.
Los Angeles County, CA
Code § 12955); Discrimination (Civil Code § 51); Breach of Contract; Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment (Civil Code § 1940.2); Defamation; Invasion of Privacy; Public Disclosure of Private Facts; Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; Retaliatory Eviction (Civil Code § 1942.5(d) and Common Law); and Constructive Eviction. On February 10, 2020 the Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication of the third cause of action for breach of contract.
Employment
Discrimination/Harass
Los Angeles County, CA
Hirschfield Trust and Does 1 – 10 for: (1) violation of Civil Code § 1940.2; (2) violation of Santa Monica Municipal Code § 4.56.020; (3) violation of Santa Monica Municipal Code § 1890; and (4) breach of contract. Cohen alleges that Cross-Defendant owns the premises located at 746 Marine Street, in the City of Santa Monica. (X-C ¶ 3.)
Real Property
Landlord Tenant
Los Angeles County, CA
Ninth Cause of Action for Landlord Harassment Plaintiffs alleges landlord harassment under California Civil Code §1940.2. Civil Code § 1940.2 forbids a landlord from making threats to interfere with a tenant’s quiet enjoyment of property or engaging in menacing conduct for the purposes of influencing a tenant to vacate a dwelling. Cal. Civ. Code § 1940.2. Again, Plaintiffs have not alleged that Hocker is a landlord for this section to apply.
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
