Source: https://trellis.law/ca/issue-type/breach-of-warranty-of-habitability-444/7
Timestamp: 2020-08-09 02:01:01
Document Index: 443194213

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1941', '§9141', '§1942', '§ 1942', '§ 51', '§17200', '§1941', '§ 1942', '§ 1940', '§ 1714', '§ 1942']

Claims for breach of warranty of habitability
A warranty of habitability is implied in all residential leases. (Green v. Superior Court (1974) 10 Cal.3d 616, 619.) A breach of this warranty may be alleged as an affirmative claim. Erlach v. Sierra Asset Servicing, LLC (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1297. A dwelling is untenantable if, inter alia, it lacks “[e]ffective waterproofing and weather protection of roof and exterior walls.” Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §1941.1(a)(1). A claim for breach of the warranty of habitability can be based on a violation of §9141.1 or under a common-law theory. (Hyatt v. Tedesco (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th Supp. 62, 67.)
The implied warranty imposes upon the landlord the obligation to maintain leased dwellings in a habitable condition throughout the term of the lease. The standard for breach is a substantial defect or statutory noncompliance. (Smith v. David (1981) 120 Cal.App.3d 101, 109.) The landlord’s actual or constructive notice of the alleged uninhabitable condition is an essential prerequisite to an actionable breach of warranty claim. (See Peterson v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1185, 1205-1206.)
Code Civ. Sec. 1942.4 provides in relevant part:
A landlord of a dwelling may not demand rent, collect rent, issue a notice of a rent increase, or issue a three-day notice to pay rent or quit . . . if all of the following conditions exist prior to the landlord’s demand or notice: (1) [t]he dwelling substantially lacks any of the affirmative standard characteristics listed in Section 1941.1 or violates Section 17920.10 of the Health and Safety Code, or is deemed and declared substandard as set forth in Section 17920.3 of the Health and Safety Code because conditions listed in that section exist to an extent that endangers the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the public or the occupants of the dwelling. (Code Civ. Sec. 1942.4)
Elements for Cause of Action
The elements of the cause of action for breach of the implied warranty of habitability are:
a material defective condition affecting habitability of the premises;
notice to the landlord within a reasonable time after the tenant’s discovery of the substandard condition;
that the landlord was given a reasonable time to remedy the condition; and
(Erlach v. Sierra Asset Servicing, LLC (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1297; Quevedo v. Braga (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 7-8.)
Judicial Interpretation and Precedent
“In Green v. Superior Court (1974) 10 Cal.3d 616, our Supreme Court adopted the Hinson warranty theory and held that a breach of the warranty could be asserted as an affirmative defense in a landlord's action for unlawful detainer for nonpayment of rent.” (Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 903, 914. citing Green, at 635.) “The court rejected the long established rule that a landlord's failure to perform any duty to maintain the premises was independent of the tenant's duty to pay rent.” (Id.) ”In the modern residential lease, governed by contract principles, the tenant's duty to pay rent is mutually dependent upon the landlord's fulfillment of his implied warranty of habitability.” (Id.) “Since the landlord's breach may be directly relevant to the issue of possession, the tenant may be able to prove that no rent is in fact due and owing.” (Id.)
Judicially Held Public Policy
“In approving the implied warranty doctrine, Green noted that under the comprehensive housing codes of today, public policy requires landlords to bear the primary responsibility for maintaining safe, clean and habitable housing. The court defined the scope of the warranty as follows: ‘Under the implied warranty which we recognize, a residential landlord covenants that premises he leases for living quarters will be maintained in a habitable state for the duration of the lease. This implied warranty of habitability does not require that a landlord ensure that leased premises are in perfect, aesthetically pleasing condition, but it does mean that `bare living requirements' must be maintained. In most cases substantial compliance with those applicable building and housing code standards which materially affect health and safety will suffice to meet the landlord's obligations under the common law implied warranty of habitability we now recognize.’” ( Id., citing Green at 637, fn. omitted.)
Of great importance to the decision which we reach today is the express holding in Green that the statutory remedies provided a tenant under Civil Code section 1941 et seq. were not intended by the Legislature as the tenant's exclusive remedy for the landlord's failure to repair. "Although past cases have held that the Legislature intended the remedies afforded by section 1942 to be the sole procedure for enforcing the statutory duty on landlords imposed by section 1941 [citations], no decision has suggested that the Legislature designed these statutory provisions to displace the common law in fixing the respective rights of landlord and tenant. On the contrary, the statutory remedies of section 1942 have traditionally been viewed as additional to, and complementary of, the tenant's common law rights." (10 Cal.3d at pp. 629-630, italics added.) Thus, ". . . the statutory framework of section 1941 et seq. has never been viewed as a curtailment of the growth of the common law in this field." (10 Cal.3d at 630, italics added.)
Measure of Damages Under Green
Green recognized that the ascertainment of damages for breach of the warranty would be difficult, but no more so than in other tort and contract situations, and the courts must do the best they can. The measure of damages should be the difference between the fair rental value of the premises if they had been as warranted, and the fair rental value as they were during the occupancy in the unsafe or unsanitary condition (10 Cal.3d 638). Another reasonable approach is a percentage reduction of use: reducing the tenant's rental obligation by a percentage corresponding to the relative reduction of use of the leased premises caused by the landlord's breach (10 Cal.3d 639, fn. 24). Green, however, did not address the issue of damages for tortious injury such as discomfort, annoyance or mental anguish resulting from the breach of warranty. The importance of this type of damage is forcefully explained by Professor Moskovitz: "Generally, the residential tenant who has suffered a breach of the warranty does not lose money. He instead cannot bathe as frequently as he would like or at all if there is inadequate hot water; he must worry about rodents harassing his children or spreading disease if the premises are infested; or he must avoid certain rooms or worry about catching a cold if there is inadequate weather protection or heat. Thus discomfort and annoyance are the common injuries caused by each breach and hence the true nature of the general damages the tenant is claiming." (62 Cal.L.Rev. at 1470-1471.)
Useful Rulings on Breach of Warranty of Habitability
ORLANDO AVENUE PROPERTIES, LLC VS SIENA HUGH MONTESANO
TENTATIVE RULING Orlando Avenue Properties, LLC v. Siena Hugh Montesano, Case No. 19SMCV01429 Hearing Date: February 10, 2020 Plaintiff’s Demurrer and Motion to Strike Portions of First Amended Cross-Complaint Cross-complainant Siena Hugh Montesano (“Montesano”) leased real property from cross-defendant Orlando Avenue Properties, LLC (“Orlando”), which allegedly failed to repair the property a...
..are: (1) the contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) breach, and (4) damages. Hamilton v. Greenwich Investors XXVI, LLC (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1602, 1614. A warranty of habitability is implied in all residential leases. Green v. Superior Court (1974) 10 Cal.3d 616, 619. A breach of this warranty may be alleged as an affirmative claim. Erlach v. Sierra Asset Servicin...
JENNIFER LOA, ET AL. VS GS LONG BEACH LLC A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs Jennifer Loa; Clarence Loa; Emily Loa; Ian Davidson; Sydney Loa; Maya Ojeda-Loa, through her guardian ad litem, Sydney Loa; Peggy Loa; Robert Flores Jr.; and Alwyn Loa sue Defendants GS Long Beach LLC, Pacific Court Pine Square Partners, and Does 1 through 50 for damages arising from Defendants’ alleged failure to maintain the rental property in which Plaintiffs reside or...
..entitlement to (1) reimbursement for utilities, (2) treble damages or other statutory or common law damages, (3) rent abatement and attorney fees pursuant to CC §1942(b); and (4) Plaintiffs’ prayer for attorney fees and costs. ALLEGATIONS Plaintiffs allege that they are or have been tenants at an apartment building located at 250 Pacific Ave., Long Beach (the Apartment). Defendants GS Long Beach...
JACKSON VS. DOLAN
HEARING ON DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT FILED BY JOHN PHILIP DOLAN, HIEN NGUYEN * TENTATIVE RULING: * Before the Court are defendants’ demurrer and motion to strike plaintiff’s complaint, which was filed August 16, 2019. The demurrer is sustained in part, with leave to amend as set forth below. The motion to strike is denied. Plaintiff shall file and serve her amended complaint by December 30, 2019. ...
..plies, and that her rent was wrongfully increased in $100 increments on three occasions from the initial $1,400 per month to $1,700 per month at the time of eviction in 2019. (Id. at ¶¶3, 12, 17-19, 60-62, 69.) Plaintiff alleges she was evicted so that defendants could move into her unit and rent their own upstairs unit for market rate at $3,800 per month. (Id. at ¶¶17-20.) Plaintiff’s complaint...
GRAHAM WIGGINS VS RPK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ET AL
Graham Wiggins, Plaintiffs, vs. RPK Development Corporation, et al. Defendants.Case No.: BC 701922Hearing Date: March 11, 2019Hearing Time: 8:30 a.m.[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:A. DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESB. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESBackgroundPlaintiff Graham Wiggins (“Wiggins”) filed this action...
..e; and that despite being on notice of defects, Defendants have failed to remedy them. The FAC asserts causes of action for breach of contract, breach of implied warranty of habitability,...
Joseph H. Chang, MD v. Villa Fontana Limited, a California general partnership
Nature of Proceedings: DemurrerJoseph H. Chang, M.D., v. Villa Fontana Limited, L.P., Case No. 15CV03844 (Judge Sterne)Hearing Date: February 22, 2016Motion: Demurrer of Defendant to ComplaintAttorneys:For Plaintiff Joseph H. Chang, M.D.: Donald J. Hamman, Eve A. Brackmann, Stuart KaneFor Defendant Villa Fontana Limited, L.P.: Diana Jessup Lee, Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy, LLPTentative Ruling:For...
..MAI), a medical aesthetics clinic located at 1150 Coast Village Road, Suite H, Montecito, California (Premises). (Complaint, ¶ 9.) In order to operate MAI at...
Brian Nappi vs. Gina Sheng Chi Yu
The Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint brought by defendant Gina Sheng Chi Yu ("Yu") is OVERRULED.The Motion to Strike Portions of the Second Amended Complaint brought by defendant Yu is DENIED. Defendant Yu's Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED.Request for Judicial Notice. Defendant Yu requests that this Court take judicial notice of the Second Amended Complaint in this action pursuant to Ev...
..ifornia, the request is granted. Background. Plaintiff Brian Nappi ("Plaintiff") alleges that he entered into a residential lease agreement (the "Lease Agreement") to occupy the property located at 668 Westlake, Encinitas, California (the "Property"). Plaintiff alleges that he entered into the...
Recent Rulings on Breach of Warranty of Habitability
151-175 of 1051 results
Civil - Unlimited (31)
Civil Case Management Conference (11)
Demurrer / Motion To Strike (20)
Ex Parte (2)
Motion Hearing (Civil) (16)
Osc - Sanctions (1)
Osc - Why Case Should Not Be Dismissed (1)
Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) (10)
Trial Readiness Conference (Civil) (1)
A. James Robertson Ii (4)
Andrew Sweet (1)
Allan D. Hardcastle For Hon. Patrick M. Broderick (1)
Benny C. Osorio (11)
Charlotte W. Woolard (4)
Christine Carringer (2)
Cary Nishimoto (1)
Chad Firetag (1)
Charles Treat (5)
Colleen Sterne (12)
Craig G. Riemer (2)
Curtis A. Kin (2)
Dalila Corral Lyons (7)
Dan Thomas Oki (14)
Daniel S. Murphy (48)
David De Alba (3)
David M. Chapman (4)
David R Chaffee (1)
David S. Cunningham (5)
David Sotelo (16)
David W. Abbott (1)
David Worley (2)
Deborah C Servino (12)
Debre Katz Weintraub (1)
Deirdre Hill (7)
Denise Debellefeuille (6)
Dennis J. Landin (4)
Dept. 6 (1)
Donald Black (4)
Donna Geck (27)
Eddie C Sturgeon (6)
Edward Weil (1)
Elaine Lu (3)
Elaine Lu Or Yolanda Orozco (9)
Elizabeth R. Feffer (5)
Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha (1)
Frederick C. Shaller (7)
Frederick Horn (3)
Gail Ruderman Feuer (11)
Geoffrey Glass (2)
Gerald Rosenberg (2)
Glade Roper (1)
Glen Reiser (1)
Glenn R. Salter (2)
Gloria White-Brown (9)
Gregory Keosian (11)
Gregory Lewis (3)
Harry Dorfman (7)
Holly J. Fujie (32)
Howard L. Halm (14)
Jacqueline M. Stern (6)
James Di Cesare (2)
James E. Blancarte Or Serena R. Murillo (4)
James L. Crandall (4)
James L. Stoelker (1)
Jeffrey G. Bennett (2)
Jill Fannin (6)
Joel M. Pressman (4)
John C. Gastelum (2)
John J. Kralik (2)
John S. Meyer (8)
Jon R. Takasugi (6)
Judith Craddick (4)
Katherine Bacal (5)
Kevin Denoce (11)
Lillian K. Sing (1)
Laura A. Seigle (4)
Laurie M. Earl (1)
Lori Ann Fournier (8)
Lori Ann Fournier Or Olivia Rosales (2)
Marla J. Miller (1)
Marc Marmaro (10)
Mark Borrell (1)
Mark C. Kim (13)
Martha K. Gooding (1)
Mary E. Arand (1)
Maurice A. Leiter Or Salvatore Sirna (5)
Michael J. Raphael (24)
Michael M. Johnson (2)
Michael P. Linfield (51)
Michael W. Jones (1)
Michelle Williams Court (8)
Patrick J. Mahoney (1)
Patricia D. Nieto (26)
Pauline Maxwell (16)
Richard B. Ulmer (2)
Ronald E. Quidachay (12)
Rafael A. Ongkeko (14)
Ralph C. Hofer (27)
Randolph M. Hammock (6)
Rebecca Susan Riley (1)
Richard E. Rico Or Jon R. Takasugi (1)
Richard S. Whitney (4)
Robert A. Dukes (2)
Robert P Dahlquist (5)
Robert S. Draper (13)
Ronald F. Frazier (14)
Ronald L. Styn (5)
Ross Klein (4)
Salvatore Sirna Or Gary Y. Tanaka (4)
Samantha P. Jessner (7)
Socrates Peter Manoukian (1)
Steven D. Blades Or Brian S. Currey (1)
Sunil R. Kulkarni (6)
Tamara L Mosbarger (2)
Tana L. Coates (5)
Tari Cody (4)
Teresa A. Beaudet (18)
Theodore R. Howard (2)
Theresa M. Traber (11)
Thomas Anderle (10)
Thomas E. Kuhnle (1)
Timothy M. Casserly (6)
Warren C. Stracener (6)
William D. Stewart (43)
Yolanda Orozco (19)
Yolanda Orozco Or Georgina Torres Rizk (1)
Los Angeles County, CA (706)
Santa Barbara County, CA (76)
San Diego County, CA (64)
San Francisco County, CA (40)
Ventura County, CA (33)
Contra Costa County, CA (24)
Santa Clara County, CA (13)
Fresno County, CA (11)
Riverside County, CA (10)
San Luis Obispo County, CA (9)
El Dorado County, CA (6)
AMY DEZELLAR VS KROTONA APARTMENTS, ET AL.
On May 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed the first amended complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants for (1) breach of warranty of habitability (Civil Code section 1941.1); (2) breach of warranty of habitability (Health and Safety Code section 17920.3); (3) premises liability and negligence per se; (4) negligence; (5) negligent infliction of emotional distress; (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (7) violation of the Rent Stabilization Ordinance; (8) breach of implied covenant of quiet enjoyment; (9) constructive
PASTORA GUTIERREZ ET AL VS JOSE A ALONZO ET AL
Here, Defendants have not presented evidence that Plaintiff Esther Guerara fully tried the issues presented by her causes of action seeking damages for breach of implied warranty of habitability, nuisance, violation of Civil Code § 1942.4 and negligence. As Ayala notes, merely pleading the breach of implied warranty of habitability as an affirmative defense, by itself, in insufficient to show a full and extensive litigation of that issue for purposes of res judicata and collateral estoppel.
Judge Elizabeth Allen White
MARIA REYNA VS CORBIN COURT LLC, ET AL.
Plaintiff’s operative complaint, filed September 23, 2019, alleges nine causes of action: (1) fraud by intentional misrepresentation, (2) “personal injuries based on negligence”, (3) retroactive rent abatement, (4) breach of implied warranty of habitability, (5) negligent maintenance, (6) “maintenance of nuisance,” (7) violation of Unruh Civil Rights Act, (8) discrimination and violation of ADA, and (9) disability discrimination (Civil Code §§ 51, 52(a), 54.3, 55.56.)
SEBLE MULUGETHA, ET AL. VS ANTREAS HINDOYAN, ET AL.
Eleventh Cause of Action—Breach of Warranty of Habitability Plaintiffs in the opposition withdraw this cause of action. The demurrer accordingly is sustained without leave to amend.
Thus, Plaintiff breached the implied warranty of habitability. Judgment was entered in favor of Defendant. After determining the reasonable rental value of the Property with these conditions, calculating holdover damages, and determining Defendant was entitled to credit for prior rent and parking payment, Defendant was ordered to pay Plaintiff $450 in certified funds within 5 days, or by 5:00 p.m. Monday, July 1, 2019.
Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha
EMILIO VASQUEZ VS 340 WEST DUARTE ROAD, LLC, ET AL.
The first amended complaint (“FAC”), filed July 23, 2019, alleges causes of action for: (1) breach of implied warranty of habitability; (2) breach of implied covenant of quiet enjoyment; (3) IIED; (4) negligence; (5) nuisance; and (6) violation of Business & Professions Code, §17200 et seq.
HASANI WHITE VS. BRET AASEN
Here, plaintiffs’ FAC includes causes of action for: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Breach of Implied in fact Contract; (3) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (4) Breach of the Implied Warranty of Habitability-Contract; (5) Breach of the Implied Warranty of Habitability-Tort; (6) Negligence; (7) Nuisance; (8) Violation of Civil Code sections 1941, 1941.1, 1941.3, and 1942.4; (9) Violation of Civil Code section 1942.5; and (10) Violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200.
TAROKH VS LYON MANAGEMENT GROUP INC
The FAC asserts nine causes of action, including breach of warranty of habitability, negligence, nuisance, intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED"), breach of contract and battery. Discussion Causes of Action for Breach of Warranty of Habitability The 1st, 2nd and 3rd causes of action allege defendant breached the warranty of habitability under Civil Code section 1941.1, Health & Safety Code section 17920.3 and Civil Code section 1942.4.
Judge Katherine Bacal
Fourth Cause of Action - Illegal Rent increase in Violation of the Richmond Rent Ordinance Defendants argue that the fourth cause of action for illegal rent increases, fails because the fifth cause of action (breach of the implied warranty of habitability) fails. A portion of the fourth cause of action does incorporate the alleged breach of the warranty of habitability. (Complaint, ¶59.)
Judge Jill Fannin
BRIAN BROSNAN, ET AL. VS MOSS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, DBA MOSS AND COMPANY PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
The complaint, filed May 28, 2019, alleges causes of action for: (1) breach of implied warranty of habitability; (2) negligence; (3) nuisance; (4) breach of warranty of quiet enjoyment; and (5) fraud. Motion to Strike On October 1, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to strike portions of the complaint, including allegations for punitive damages (¶37 and the prayer for relief at ¶6), and the request for reasonable attorney’s fees (prayer for relief at ¶5). Plaintiffs oppose.
MCANALLY VS DAWSON
Even if CC §1941.1 does not provide a private right of action, there is an implied warranty of habitability in all residential tenancies. Under this doctrine, a landlord "covenants that premises he leases for living quarters will be maintained in a habitable state for the duration of the lease." Knight v. Hallsthammar (1981) 29 Cal. 3d 46, 52.
MARITZA BEST VS STEVEN J SHERWIN
On June 12, 2018, plaintiffs filed their complaint, alleging causes of action for negligence (general negligence, negligent failure to disclose latent defect, negligence per se, and negligent failure to perform covenant to repair), negligent infliction of emotional distress, breach of implied warranty of habitability (common law), breach of implied warranty of habitability (statutory), private nuisance, breach of contract, and retaliatory eviction.
Judge Pauline Maxwell
AARON KWESKIN, AN INDIVIDUAL VS. RONNIE CHARLES KING
As to the third cause of action for breach of warranty of habitability, however, it does not appear that defendants previously challenged the cause of action for breach of warranty of habitability, which was the ninth cause of action in the FAC.
Judge Curtis A. Kin
MARIA MANZO GONZALEZ VS. P & D ASSETS LLC
Clearly, no claim for punitive damages can be sought on the first cause of action for breach of contract and/or the second cause of action for breach of warranty of habitability. With respect to attorneys' fees, the motion is denied. Again, clearly fees are appropriate to the extent they are provided for by contract and/or statute. Finally, as to the damages under the second cause of action, a tenant may seek tort damages for breach of the implied covenant of habitability (see, e.g., Stoiber v.
Judge Kevin DeNoce
ANGELICA GUERRERO, ET AL. VS EASTSIDE VILLAGE, LLP, ET AL.
.: 19STCV09120 Matter on calendar for: Motion to Strike Tentative ruling: Background This action involves alleged breaches of the warranty of habitability, retaliatory conduct, and harassment. Plaintiffs Angelica Guerroro, Angelica Uriquidez, and Eduardo Armenta allege Defendants Eastside Village, LP, Jessica Garcia, and Frances Williams improperly maintained and operated the premises at 2250 East 111th St., Apt. 220, Los Angeles.
Salvatore Sirna or Gary Y. Tanaka
LAURA SHAPIRO ET AL VS MORAD BEN NEMAN ET AL
In the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), Plaintiffs allege seventeen causes of action based on breach of the implied warranty of habitability, negligence, and various statutory violations. On October 10, 2018, the Court sustained Defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend to the following causes of action: (10) constructive eviction; (12) abuse of process and frivolous filings; (17) breach of oral contract; and (24) fraud.
MATHEW KREDELL ET AL VS 900 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET APARTMENTS
The FAC asserts causes of action for (1) breach of warranty of habitability (violation of Civil Code section 1941.1); (2) breach of warranty of habitability (violation of Health & Safety Code section 17920.3); (3) breach of warranty of habitability (violation of Civil Code section 1942.4); (4) negligence – premises liability; (5) nuisance; (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (7) breach of contract; and (8) breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment.
SANDRA RUIZ, ET AL. VS DELAINE YATES, ET AL.
The Complaint alleges thirteen causes of action for: 1) breach of common law duty of care; 2) breach of warranty of habitability; 3) violation of Civ. Code § 1942.4; 4) violation of Civ. 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.
JESUS LEONEL SANCHEZ CORONEL, ET AL. VS PAMA IV PROPERTIES, LP, ET AL.
On July 11, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their complaint asserting five causes of action: (1) violation of Civil Code section 1942.4; (2) tortuous breach of the warranty of habitability; (3) private nuisance; (4) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.; and (5) negligence. Plaintiffs pray for punitive damages. Plaintiffs served their complaint on Defendants via substituted service on September 23, 2019 and mailing completed on September 27, 2019.
VELIA TALAMANTES, ET AL. V. GRAND VIEW APARTMENTS, LLC ET AL.
Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges causes of action for (1) tortious breach of the implied warranty of habitability; (2) breach of implied warranty of habitability; (3) specific performance of lease agreements; (4) violation of Civil Code section 1942.4; (5) bad faith retention of security deposits; (6) damages for nuisance; (7) abatement of nuisance – injunctive relief; (8) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 – restitution; (9) violation of Business & Professions Code section 17200 – injunctive
REFAAT BESHARA VS GARDENA SENIOR HOUSING, INC; ET AL
Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on February 23, 2018, asserting the following causes of action: (1) negligence; (2) premises liability; (3) nuisance; (4) negligent failure to provide habitable premises; (5) breach of implied warranty of habitability; (6) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment; (7) violation of unfair competition law; (8) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (9) unlawful influence to vacate; (10) invasion of privacy; and (11) elder abuse.
Discrimination/Harass
MARTIN VS. G6 HOSPITALITY PROP
First Cause of Action - Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability Defendant argues plaintiff fails to state a cause of action for breach of implied warranty of habitability.
ADELINA RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. VS KE PEI, ET AL.
(“PRC”) and Does 1-20 for: Breach of Contract Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability/Tenantability Breach of Implied Warranty of Quiet Enjoyment Negligence Constructive Eviction Retaliatory Acts Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Concealment Intentional Misrepresentation Negligent Misrepresentation Trespass Retention of Security Deposit On October 7, 2019, Plaintiffs filed an Amendment to Complaint, correcting the name of PRC to “Perez Reconstruction Contractors, Inc. dba PRC.
ANTOINE HUBBARD, SENIOR VS. BNZ DIVERSIFIED CORP, ET AL
Demurrer to Certain Causes of Action in Complaint The Demurrer by Defendants BNZ Diversified Corp. and Fornia Hospitality Group, LLC dba Merced Inn & Suites to the First Cause of Action for Breach of the Implied Warranty of Habitability is OVERRULED.
« first previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 43 next last »