Source: https://trellis.law/ca/issue-type/breach-of-warranty-of-habitability-444/9
Timestamp: 2020-08-09 02:12:26
Document Index: 70177456

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1942', '§ 17200', '§1941', '§ 1942', '§151', '§1942', '§ 789', '§ 1942', '§ 1942']

201-225 of 1051 results
ERIK KITTER, ET AL. VS KEUM NAM CHANG, ET AL.
Plaintiffs complaint alleges against Defendants the following causes of action: (1) constructive eviction; (2) breach of contract; (3) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment; (4) breach of implied warranty of habitability; (5) tortious breach of implied warranty of habitability; (6) negligence; (7) private nuisance; (8) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (9) violation of Los Angeles Municipal Code, Section 151.04; (10) violation of California Civil Code, Section 1942.4; (11) violation of California
KATHYRIA GALINDO ET AL VS INGA DIATCHKOVA ET AL
Plaintiffs assert seven causes of action for: (1) untenantable dwelling in violation of Civil Code, § 1942.4; (2) breach of the implied warranty of habitability; (3) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment; (4) private nuisance; (5) failure to pay relocation; (6) violation of Business and Professions Code, §§ 17200 et seq.
PATRICIA YRIGOLLEN VS. JESUS CRUZ
Demurrer on ground of uncertainty is OVERRULED. 1st – 2nd CAUSES OF ACTION BREACH OF CONTRACT and BREACH OF THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY: BREACH OF CONTRACT: The elements for a breach of contract cause of action are: (1) the contract; (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance; (3) defendant’s breach; and (4) resulting damages. (Reichert v. General Ins. Co. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 822, 830.)
BOBBI BARBETH KORSNOVA VS. PREMIER APARTMENTS, LLC, ET AL
of habitability; and (6) IIED.
EDA JOYA CASTILLO ET AL VS MAJD INC ET AL
Plaintiffs’ complaint includes claims for negligence, breach of the warranty of habitability, breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, violation of Civil Code §1941.1, nuisance, constructive eviction, and IIED. Noel and Daniel are minor children, and are appearing in the action by and through their GAL, Eda Joya Castillo. At this time, Plaintiffs have agreed to settle this action with Defendants for the total amount of $40,000.
In their Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), Plaintiffs allege seventeen causes of action arising out of the 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.
FML also noted every defendant asserted an affirmative defense based upon the implied warranty of habitability in the common areas of the Burlington Apartments. The cases do not involve the same parties within the meaning of CRC 3.300(a)(1) as FML is the only common party among the cases.
ANNA LOFTON VS SHIRLEY M FALK
Faulk alleging breach of implied warranty of habitability, breach of covenant of quiet use and enjoyment, negligence, premises liability, violation of California Civil Code section 1942.4, nuisance, negligent failure to provide habitable premises, violation of Business & Professions Code section 17200, and violation of Los Angeles Municipal Code section 151.00, et seq. The complaint arises from Plaintiff living in a vermin and cockroach infested apartment for four years.
MANUEL ORDAZ VS ROMAN PADILLA
BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed the First-Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendant alleging causes of action for: (1) financial elder abuse; (2) negligence; (3) controversy real property; (4) unfair business practices under California Business and Professions Code, Section 17200; (5) invasion of privacy; (6) landlord harassment and retaliation; (7) breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment; (8) breach of implied warranty of habitability; and (9) infliction of emotional distress.
JEROME WILLIAMS VS WASSEN WLSHAIED
On July 24, 2019, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint using a personal injury form complaint asserting causes of action for (1) general negligence, (2) premises liability, and (3) breach of implied warranty of habitability against Defendant and Does 1 through 25. On August 30, 2019, Defendant filed his motions to compel further responses to his form interrogatories (FROG) and special interrogatories (SROG) from Plaintiff. Defendant requests sanctions for both motions.
Sustain as to the second cause of action for breach of implied warranty of habitability because the SAC fails to allege the second and third prongs outlined in Quevedo v. Braga (1977) 72 Cal.App. 3d Supp 1, 7; i.e., Plaintiffs have not alleged that the defective conditions were unknown to them at the time of occupancy, or that the effect on habitability was not apparent on reasonable inspection. This is Plaintiffs final chance to ameliorate the pleading.
ARTURO ACOSTA VS ARMINDA MURILLO
The demurrer to the first cause of action, therefore, is overruled. 2nd Cause of Action for Intentional Tort Defendant correctly points out that there is no such cause of action for “intentional tort” but Plaintiff’s allegations of the inhabitable conditions, and harassing or threatening conduct by Defendant, could form the basis for a number of different causes of action including breach of the implied warranty of habitability or stalking under Civil Code section 1708.7.
AIDA OGANESIAN, ET AL. VS CAH-2014-1 BORROWER, LLC, ET AL.
Plaintiffs filed their initial Complaint on April 10, 2019, and filed their operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on June 19, 2019, alleging ten causes of action sound in (1) Private Nuisance, (2) Breach of Warranty of Habitability, (3) Negligence, (4) Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, (5) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment, (6) Violation of Civ.
ANGELICA LARA VS. CSH PROPERRTY ONE, LLC
While Defendants may contend that the Moving Plaintiffs are not entitled to pursue a cause of action for breach of the implied warranty of habitability and for violation of Code of Civ. Proc. § 1942.4, the Defendants have not obtained a judgment or order prohibiting the Moving Plaintiffs from pursuing those causes of action. Rather, Defendants admit the Moving Plaintiffs have at least a tenuous connection to the lease agreement as third party beneficiaries. (Opposition at p. 6:4-6.)
SHANEKQUA JACKSON ET AL VS WOODBURN HOUSING LLC ET AL
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PETITIONS TO APPROVE MINORS’ COMPROMISE Background On November 10, 2016, Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendants alleging negligent maintenance of premises, nuisance, breach of warranty of habitability, breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment, negligent violations of statutory and legal duties, intentional violations of statutory and legal duties, and constructive eviction.
Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants alleging causes of action for: (1) breach of the implied warranty of habitability; (2) negligence; (3) nuisance; and (4) violation of Los Angeles Municipal Code, Sections 151.04/151.10. Defendants Michail and PMI filed a demurrer to each cause of action in the complaint, as well as a motion to strike portions of Plaintiffs’ complaint.
JAMES M. KRINGEL V. VINCE ZANKICH
Plaintiff, who is self-represented, filed the complaint on October 2, 2018, and alleges causes of action for: (1) tortious breach of contract in bad faith, (2) breach of duty, (3) breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment of the premises, (4) breach of implied warranty of habitability, (5) nuisance, (6) negligence, (7) IIED, and (8) NIED. Defendant answered the complaint on January 28, 2019 as a self-represented litigant. On August 6, 2019, Defendant substituted in counsel.
FANOR MASSOLAS ET AL VS BYRON L BOBBITT
Municipal Code, §151 .09; (5) Violation Of Civil Code, §1942.4; (6) Breach Of Contract; (7) Breach Of Implied Warranty Of Habitability; (8) Nuisance; (9) Negligence; (10) Violation of Civ. Code § 789, et seq.; (11) IIED; and (12) Constructive Eviction. As of April 15, 2018, Bobbitt was self-represented. The Court struck Bobbitt’s answer after his failure to appear on October 25, 2018. Plaintiffs now move for default judgment.
RAFAEL ROBLES , ET AL. VS CARL MERSOLA, ET AL.
Plaintiffs May Seek Punitive Damages Under the Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability Claim Defendants argue Plaintiffs cannot recover punitive damages under their first cause of action because the breach of implied warranty of habitability gives rise to an action in contract. In Stoiber v.
CORBIN JOHN RECKE ET AL VS ELEONORE MESTDAGH ET AL
The FAC asserts causes of action for: Constructive Eviction; Breach of Contract; Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment; Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability; Tortious Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability; Negligence; Private Nuisance; Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; Violation of Los Angeles Municipal Code section 151.04; Violation of California Civil Code section 1942.4; Violation of California Civil Code section 1942.5; and Violation of Unfair Business Practices.
PAULA CLAY VS MEGRUDER MADISON
On September 24, 2018, Plaintiff filed the original complaint against Defendant alleging causes of action for: Private Nuisance Breach of Warranty of Habitability Negligence Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Breach of Implied Covenant and Quiet Enjoyment Violation of California Civil Code § 1942.4 On August 29, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte application for an order granting leave to amend or in the alternative, to shorten the time for notice and hearing of Plaintiff’s motion for leave
On September 24, 2019, Plaintiff filed the original complaint against Defendant alleging causes of action for: Private Nuisance Breach of Warranty of Habitability Negligence Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Breach of Implied Covenant and Quiet Enjoyment Violation of California Civil Code § 1942.4 On August 29, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte application for an order granting leave to amend or in the alternative, to shorten the time for notice and hearing of Plaintiff’s motion for leave