What are unlawful acts of landlords?

Useful Rulings on Unlawful Acts of Landlords

Recent Rulings on Unlawful Acts of Landlords

STEPHANIE SHIN VS JEWISH EDUCATIONAL MOVEMENT, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION , ET AL.

. & 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).

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

RICHARD DEL ROSARIO VS JOSEPH KAISER GABRIEL ET AL

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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

MICHELLE MANNING VS TODD SMITH, ET AL.

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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

RICHARD S HIRSCHFIELD VS TANYA COHEN

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.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

CESAR A. BON, ET AL. VS AZHER MALIK

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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

SHERI MURRAY V. GERALD HARTZELL

Code, §§ 1940.2, 1942.5); (6) violation of Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “Rosenthal Act”) (Civ. Code, § 1788, et seq.); and (7) for a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) (15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq.) Plaintiffs allege that on August 15, 2016, Sheri and Tom entered into a written residential lease agreement with Walker on behalf of Hartzell to rent property located in Los Osos, California (the “Subject Premises”). (Complaint, ¶ 13; Exh. A to the Complaint.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 10, 2020

JESSE WEINER, ET AL. VS QINGHUA CHEN, ET AL.

Code §1940.2; (4) Assault; (5) False Imprisonment; (6) Nuisance; (7) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”); and (8) Violation of Civ. Code §52.1. PRESENTATION: Chen filed the three motions to compel further responses on January 06, 2020, and thereafter filed a consolidated reply brief on March 06, 2020. While the Court received no filed opposition to the motions, Chen’s filing of the consolidated reply indicated that Chen had received an opposing brief by the Plaintiffs.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2020

LUIS ZULETA, ET AL. VS ELIZA KIM

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

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2020

DIANA BOSE VS WAYNE D.H. YOUNG, ET AL.

Defendants argue that the cause of action is ambiguous and unintelligible because tenant harassment under Civil Code §1940.2 and retaliatory eviction under Civil Code §1942.5 are two distinct claims that require proof of different elements. Defendants also argue that the allegations are insufficient as to both claims.

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MARIA CASTRO VS LOURDES LOPEZ

Code section 1940.2, (5) violation of Civil Code section 52.1, (6) interruption of services, (7) unfair business practices (Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 et seq., (8) collection of excess rent, and (9) forcible entry. The Complaint alleges in pertinent part as follows. Castro resides at 4411 Lowell Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90032 (“Property”) and has lived at the Property since January 2017.

  • Hearing

    Jan 23, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

KOCH VS SHARPE

Regents of University of California (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1244, 1255) The fifth cause of action for violation of Civil Code § 1940.2 fails to state sufficient facts. Plaintiff bases this claim on notice of past due rent and an attempt to change the rent due date when he has always paid his rent early was a theft. He also alleges defendants took pre-paid telephone deposits Neither of these conclusory allegations are sufficient to show a theft under Civil Code § 1940.2 and Penal Code § 484(a).

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

KOCH VS SHARPE

Regents of University of California (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1244, 1255) The fifth cause of action for violation of Civil Code § 1940.2 fails to state sufficient facts. Plaintiff bases this claim on notice of past due rent and an attempt to change the rent due date when he has always paid his rent early was a theft. He also alleges defendants took pre-paid telephone deposits Neither of these conclusory allegations are sufficient to show a theft under Civil Code § 1940.2 and Penal Code § 484(a).

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

KOCH VS SHARPE

Regents of University of California (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1244, 1255) The fifth cause of action for violation of Civil Code § 1940.2 fails to state sufficient facts. Plaintiff bases this claim on notice of past due rent and an attempt to change the rent due date when he has always paid his rent early was a theft. He also alleges defendants took pre-paid telephone deposits Neither of these conclusory allegations are sufficient to show a theft under Civil Code § 1940.2 and Penal Code § 484(a).

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SANDRA RUIZ, ET AL. VS DELAINE YATES, ET AL.

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.

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2019

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

TAN HUI, ET AL. VS BAOTIAN XU

These legal theories include Premises Liability, Violation of Civil Code section 1940.2, Retaliatory Eviction, Bad Faith Retention of Security Deposit, and Fraud-Concealment. There are no substantive changes to the facts alleged in the FAC from the initial complaint. The Court finds that it is in furtherance of justice to grant leave to amend to resolve all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

LUIS ZULETA, ET AL. VS ELIZA KIM

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

  • Hearing

    Sep 13, 2019

JULIE MANALANSAN VS JOSE MONTES, ET AL.

Code § 1940.2, plaintiff must allege that lessor unlawfully influenced lessee to vacate a dwelling. (Civ. Code § 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 subd. (a)(3).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 12, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

AMADO CHAVEZ ET AL VS BONNIE BRAE INVESTMENT SERVICES LLC ET

Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants alleging causes of action for: (1) negligence; (2) breach of implied warranty of habitability; (3) premises liability; (4) violation of California Business and Professions Code, Section 17200; (5) negligent failure to provide habitable premises; (6) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment in violation of California Civil Code, Section 1940.2; (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (8) nuisance; (9) collection of rent on untenable dwelling in violation

  • Hearing

    Sep 06, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

SERGIO MARTINEZ VS ADRIAN ROMERO

Code §§ 1940.2 and 1942.5. Section 1940.2 provides in pertinent part: (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.

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2019

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte or Serena R. Murillo

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

AMADO CHAVEZ ET AL VS BONNIE BRAE INVESTMENT SERVICES LLC ET

Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants alleging causes of action for: (1) negligence; (2) breach of implied warranty of habitability; (3) premises liability; (4) violation of California Business and Professions Code, Section 17200; (5) negligent failure to provide habitable premises; (6) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment in violation of California Civil Code, Section 1940.2; (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (8) nuisance; (9) collection of rent on untentable dwelling in violation

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

KIMBERLY BROWN VS. FAIRFIELD WYNDOVER L.P., ET AL

Code, § 1940.2(a).) Plaintiffs FAC relies on Civil Code Sections 1940.2(a)(3) and (4).

  • Hearing

    Aug 02, 2019

RONALD LIGRANO VS JOSH WEINBERG, ET AL.

CIVIL CODE § 1940.2 — FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Defendants argue that Ligrano cannot state a claim under Civil Code § 1940.2 because he has not alleged that Defendants used threats or menacing conduct. (Demurrer at p. 7.) Civil Code § 1940.2 makes it unlawful for a landlord to, “for the purpose of influencing a tenant to vacate a dwelling . . .

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

BRENI MEJIA ET AL VS HECTOR FIGUEROA

Retaliatory eviction and harassment Under Civil Code section 1940.2(a) “[i]t is unlawful for a landlord to do any of the following for the purpose of influencing a tenant to vacate a dwelling . . . Use, or threaten to use, force, willful threats, or menacing conduct constituting a course of conduct that interferes with the tenant's quiet enjoyment of the premises in violation of Section 1927 that would create an apprehension of harm in a reasonable person.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

KEVIN ENDO, ET AL. VS NICK MEHDIZADEH, ET AL.

This is sufficient top plead a breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment and causes of action for violation of Civil Code § 1927 and 1940.2(a)(3). The demurrer to the second and third causes of action is OVERRULED. 3. Fourth Cause of Action (Violation of Civil Code § 1954(a)(2)—Unlawful Entry).

  • Hearing

    May 28, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

DEBRA STEINBERG VS BERNARD HOFFMAN ET AL

Code § 1940.2 for Harassment, violation of Civ. Code § 1942.5 for retaliation, breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, breach of the implied warranty of habitability, intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and Violation of Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civ. Code § 51.

  • Hearing

    May 21, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

1 2 3     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.