The remedy of unlawful detainer is a summary proceeding to determine the right to possession of real property. Since it is purely statutory in nature, it is essential that a party seeking the remedy bring himself clearly within the statute. (Baugh v. Consumers Associates, Limited (1966) 241 Cal.App.2d 672, 674.) Strict compliance with specifically prescribed notice conditions is a prerequisite to invoking the summary unlawful detainer procedures. (See Kwok v. Bergren (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 596, 599.) Failure to do so will render an unlawful detainer complaint defective and subject to demurrer for failure to state a cause of action. (Id.)
“Generally, in order to take advantage of this summary remedy, the landlord must demonstrate strict compliance with the statutory notice requirements contained in Code of Civil Procedure section 1161 et seq., including providing the tenant with three days' written notice to pay rent or quit the premises. The notice to quit must be served personally or, if personal service is not possible, by substituted service.” (Borsuk v. Appellate Div. of the Superior Court of L. A. Cnty. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 607, 610 n. 1. citing Culver Center Partners East #1, L.P. v. Baja Fresh Westlake Village, Inc. (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 744, 749–750.)
“According to the statutes governing unlawful detainer proceedings, ‘a tenant is entitled to a three-day notice to pay rent or quit which may be enforced by summary legal proceedings (Sec. 1161) but this notice is valid and enforceable only if the lessor strictly complies with the specifically described notice conditions.’” (Borsuk v. Appellate Div. of the Super. Ct. of L. A. Cnty. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 607, 612 citing Sec. 1162) “Stated another way, ‘[p]roper service on the lessee of a valid three-day notice to pay rent or quit is an essential prerequisite to a judgment declaring a lessor's right to possession under section 1161, subdivision 2.’” (Id.) “‘A lessor must allege and prove proper service of the requisite notice. Absent evidence the requisite notice was properly served pursuant to section 1162, no judgment for possession can be obtained. ’” (Borsuk, supra,242 Cal.App.4th at 612 citing Palm Property Investments, LLC v. Yadegar (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1419, 1425; see also Liebovich v. Shahrokhkhany (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 511, 513, holding “A lessor must strictly comply with the statutorily mandated requirements for service of a three-day notice to pay rent or quit.)
The requirement that the landlord comply with sections 1161 and 1162 by serving the three-day notice on the tenant is undisputed. (See Palm Property, supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at p. 1425, 123 Cal.Rptr.3d 816.)
Unlawful detainer actions are governed by summary statutory procedures, created to afford an “expeditious and adequate remedy for obtaining possession of premises wrongfully withheld by tenants.” (Childs v. Eltinge (1973) 29 Cal. App. 3d 843, 853.)
Unlawful detainer actions are given statutory precedence over all other civil actions other than those also granted special precedence. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1179a.) It is common to have both an unlawful detainer and a civil action pending at the same time based on one tenancy, because other than rent, damages relating to a tenancy are only recoverable in a separate civil action. (See Hudec v. Robertson (1989) 210 Cal. App. 3d 1156, 1163.)
An unlawful detainer judgment will not have collateral estoppel effect as to issues that were not and could not have been litigated in the unlawful detainer. (Friedman, et al., Cal. Prac. Guide Landlord-Tenant (The Rutter Group 2017) ¶8:6:1.) Here, there are no title issues that mean it would make more sense for the cases to be consolidated. (See, e.g. Martin-Bragg v. Moore (2013) 219 Cal. App. 4th 367, 385.) Just because the civil action for damages was filed first does not mean that a related unlawful detainer that solely seeks possession needs to be stayed, defeating its summary nature, pending resolution of the related civil matter.
In order to extend trial in an unlawful detainer action beyond the 20 day period set forth in CCP 1170.5(a), it is necessary to follow the procedures set forth in CCP 1170.5(c). That section provides that if the court finds that there is a reasonable probability that the unlawful detainer plaintiff will prevail in the case, the court must determine the amount of damages the unlawful detainer plaintiff would suffer as a result of the extension and order the unlawful detainer defendant to pay that sum into the court each month until conclusion of the action.
On January 30, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting a cause of action against New Diamond, Sweet & Cozy and Does 1-10 for: Unlawful Detainer On February 26, 2020, New Diamond’s default was entered. On June 22, 2020, Plaintiff dismissed Sweet & Cozy, without prejudice. An Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment is set for January 15, 2021. Discussion Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.
Jan 15, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court strikes the following, with leave to amend: • Page 16, line 7: “Attorney's fees . . . based on the leased signed by the PARTIES.” • Page 16, lines 8-11: “For injunctive relief including requiring DEFENDANTS to acquire reasonable training or changes in personnel policies and procedures, so that DEFENDANTS no longer engage in unlawful practices, policies, usages and customs set forth herein above, and for such other injunctive relief as the Court may deem proper.”
Dec 03, 2020
Orange County, CA
Dugan (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1483, 1495 [contact is unlawful if unconsented to].) Concerning holding an employer liable for an employee’s actions, “[t]he respondeat superior doctrine is to be given a broad application…” (Jeewarat v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 427, 434.) [A]s the Supreme Court explained in Farmers [Ins. Group v. County of Santa Clara (1995) 11 Cal.4th 992, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 478, 906 P.2d 440].
Dec 03, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Moreover, Plaintiffs themselves allege that Defendant, at the time she made the statements, was acting “in concert with” the development manager and legal counsel for the development—both are which are participants in the unlawful detainer action—for the purpose of pursuing an unlawful detainer action. (See Complaint ¶ 62.) Plaintiffs’ own Complaint situates Defendant’s actions as inextricably linked to the pursuit of an unlawful detainer action.
Dec 03, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
BACKGROUND: This action arises out of the Defendants’ use of Plaintiff, a “famous” person, in their unlawful advertising practices. (FAC, ¶ 2.) Plaintiff Jerome Ogden is a former U.S. Consul General in Shanghai and Guangzhou, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in charge of U.S. visas worldwide, and current consultant for American and Chinese businesses, expert witness in U.S. immigration courts, and professor of international relations. (FAC, ¶¶ 1-2.)
Dec 03, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
Where the defendant systematically engages in policies and practices that allegedly violate the Labor Code and thereby subjects all of its employees to the same unlawful conduct, common questions of law and fact will predominate over individualized issues. (Id. at 1032-1034 [“[t]he theory of liability—that Brinker has a uniform policy, and that that policy, measured against wage order requirements, allegedly violates the law—is by its nature a common questions eminently suited for class treatment”].)
Dec 02, 2020
Employment
Other Employment
Los Angeles County, CA
And the claim for unfair business practices under Business and Professions Code section 17200 is based on Plaintiffs’ allegations that the employment practices described in the preceding causes of action constitute unfair or unlawful business acts or practices. (FAC, ¶ 45.)
Dec 02, 2020
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff has failed to identify any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practice engaged in by AMCA/Lai; accordingly, AMCA/Lai’s demurrer to the fourth cause of action is sustained.
Dec 02, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
[Citation] ‘[A]n act is independently wrongful if it is unlawful, that is, if it is proscribed by some constitutional, statutory, regulatory, common law, or other determinable legal standard.’ [Citation.]” (Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP (2008) 44 Cal. 4th 937, 944.) Wood alleges Cross-Defendants authorized Michelman to represent to Crystal that Wood had restrictive covenants in place with Acrisure that would prevent him from soliciting clients, and Acrisure would pursue litigation against Crystal if Mr.
Dec 02, 2020
Business
Intellectual Property
Los Angeles County, CA
It is alleged that Plaintiffs discovered these unlawful practices and repeatedly protested and complained about them to Defendants. FAC, ¶ 25. It is alleged that Defendants retaliated against Plaintiffs for complaining about the unlawful practices. FAC, ¶ 26. Defendants terminated Espinoza’s employment in December 2018. FAC, ¶ 27. As for Jacobs, it is alleged that Jacobs sustained injuries at work on July 2, 2019, causing him to have a physical disability. FAC, ¶ 28.
Dec 02, 2020
Employment
Other Employment
Los Angeles County, CA
It is also unlawful for a lessor to bring an action for unlawful detainer based on a cause of action other than nonpayment of COVID-19 rental debt, as defined in Section 1179.02 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the purpose of retaliating against the lessee because the lessee has a COVID-19 rental debt. In an action brought by or against the lessee pursuant to this subdivision, the lessee shall bear the burden of producing evidence that the lessor's conduct was, in fact, retaliatory. (Civ.
Dec 02, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
It alleges that Scheinker induced fear by unlawfully injuring, and threatening GAI’s representative that if it did not give up claims to the property, further damage, harm, and unlawful injury would be done to GAI. (Compl. ¶37.) The Complaint alleges that GAI “became severely agitated and fearful.” (Compl. ¶38.) The civil extortion claim is valid if there is a threat to cause unlawful injury.
Dec 02, 2020
Riverside County, CA
Symantec violated Business and Professions Code section 17200 by engaging in unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices, including, but not limited to the following: A.
Dec 01, 2020
Santa Barbara County, CA
The County brings this motion to abate violations of the Administrative Abatement Decision and Order and Chapters 7 (Building), 11 (Grading), and 26 (Zoning) of the Sonoma County Code as to the alleged unlawful uses of the real property at 18550 Highway 116, Guerneville (“the Subject Property”). Form CIV-100 is mandatory in order to obtain a default judgment.
Nov 30, 2020
Gary Nadler via Zoom
Sonoma County, CA
On August 19, 2019, Permit Sonoma issued Notices and Orders for the following Violations of the SCC and declared the Property to be a public nuisance: VBU19-0786 - Substandard Housing or Premises for junkyard conditions and hazardous material storage and disposal; VPL19-0843 - Unlawful Use/Zoning Violation for expansion of use and Non-compliance with use permit (5246) conditions; VPL19-0844 — Unlawful Use/Zoning Violation for junkyard conditions; VPL1 9-0845 — Unlawful Use/Zoning Violation for intensification
Nov 30, 2020
Gary Nadler via Zoom
Sonoma County, CA
A conspiracy requires evidence ‘that each member of the conspiracy acted in concert and came to a mutual understanding to accomplish a common and unlawful plan, and that one or more of them committed an overt act to further it.’ Thus, conspiracy provides a remedial measure for affixing liability to all who have ‘agreed to a common design to commit a wrong’ when damage to the plaintiff results. The defendant in a conspiracy claim must be capable of committing the target tort.” (IIG Wireless, Inc. v.
Dec 01, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
Fifth Cause of Action, Unfair Trade Practices Claim (“UCL”): SUSTAINED An “action based on Business and Professions Code section 17200 to redress an unlawful business practice ‘borrows' violations of other laws and treats these violations, when committed pursuant to business activity, as unlawful practices independently actionable under section 17200.” Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 377, 383.
Dec 01, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges the following causes of action: Adverse Possession Fraud Recission Quiet title Unfair Business Practices Breach of Contract/Intentional Tort Unlawful Conversion. The current motions/applications before the Court: Demurrer – Defendants SPS, MERS, National, U.S.
Dec 01, 2020
Real Property
Quiet Title
Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna
Los Angeles County, CA
Premier also alleges that Brault extorted Premier to pay outstanding invoices, including fraudulent invoices, by threatening to report Premier to the Department of Justice that Premier was in possession of funds not owed to Premier (which were only in its possession due to Brault’s unlawful conduct). On May 17, 2020, Brault filed a cross-complaint against PHP, Anthony Cardillo, MD (“Cardillo”), and Glendale Adventist Emergency Physicians Inc. (“GAEP”) (collectively, Cross-Defendants”).
Dec 01, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Unlawful Detainer “[W]here the plaintiff in the unlawful detainer action is the purchaser at a trustee's sale, he or she need only prove a sale in compliance with the statute and deed of trust, followed by purchase at such sale, and the defendant may raise objections only on that phase of the issue of title.” (The Bank of New York Mellon v. Preciado (2013) 224 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, 9, internal quotations and citation omitted.)
Dec 01, 2020
Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna
Los Angeles County, CA
BACKGROUND This is an unlawful detainer action. Plaintiffs Garbis Zorian and Aznif Zorian as Trustees for the Garbis and Aznif Zorian Trust Dated June 15, 1993 filed an unlawful detainer action against Defendant Susan G. Willis on November 12, 2019 for failure to pay rent. On January 21, 2020, Defendant Susan G. Willis filed a cross-complaint against the Plaintiffs (“Cross-Defendants”) asserting causes of action for breach of contract and indemnification pursuant to Labor Code section 3850 et seq.
Dec 01, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
An agency decision is an abuse of discretion only if it is “arbitrary, capricious, entirely lacking in evidentiary support, unlawful, or procedurally unfair.” Kahn v. Los Angeles City Employees’ Retirement System, (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 98, 106. A writ will lie where the agency’s discretion can be exercised only in one way. Hurtado v. Superior Court, (1974) 11 Cal.3d 574, 579.
Dec 01, 2020
Administrative
Writ
Los Angeles County, CA
“By prescribing ‘any unlawful’ business practice, the UCL borrows violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices that the UCL makes independently actionable. . . . . Consequently, the alleged violations of . . . the CLRA are sufficient to satisfy the unlawful practice variety of unfair competition under the UCL. [Citation.] In other words, a violation of the CLRA can serve as the predicate for a UCL cause of action.” (Gutierrez, supra, 19 Cal.App.5th at p. 1265.)
Dec 01, 2020
Contract
Breach
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant contends that because plaintiff does not qualify as a bona fide purchaser for value, this Court has no jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer action, plaintiff was “misjoined to this action,” plaintiff lacks capacity to sue, and plaintiff’s allegations do not constitute a cause of action for unlawful detainer. Only a plaintiff with valid title to real property can proceed.
Nov 30, 2020
Santa Barbara County, CA
Premier also alleges that Brault extorted Premier to pay outstanding invoices, including fraudulent invoices, by threatening to report Premier to the Department of Justice that Premier was in possession of funds not owed to Premier (which were only in its possession due to Brault’s unlawful conduct). On May 17, 2020, Brault filed a cross-complaint against PHP, Anthony Cardillo, MD (“Cardillo”), and Glendale Adventist Emergency Physicians Inc. (“GAEP”) (collectively, Cross-Defendants”).
Nov 30, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
