Source: https://trellis.law/ca/issue-type/breach-of-warranty-of-habitability-444/6
Timestamp: 2020-08-09 01:46:59
Document Index: 209019345

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1941', '§17920', '§1942', '§ 430', '§151', '§1942', '§ 789', '§17200', '§ 436']

126-150 of 1051 results
(Ibid.) 7 A “tenant’s duty to pay rent is ‘mutually dependent’ upon the landlord’s fulfillment of his 8 implied warranty of habitability.” (Green v. Superior Court (1974) 10 Cal.3d 616, 635.) In 9 other words, if a tenant can prove such a breach, he or she will be justified in nonpayment of 10 rent.
FARZAN SHAHRI ET AL VS 449 LE DOUX PROPERTIES ET AL
Plaintiff filed the Complaint on November 4, 2013 alleging eleven causes of action: (1) premises liability; (2) negligence; (3) negligence per se; (4) breach of implied warranty of habitability; (5) breach of statutory warranty of habitability; (6) breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment; (7) negligent hiring, supervision, and training; (8) nuisance; (9) trespass; (10) constructive eviction; and (11) breach of contract.
Plaintiffs allege ten causes of action sounding in (1) Breach of Warranty of Habitability (Civ. Code §1941.1), (2) Breach of Warranty of Habitability (Health & Saf. Code §17920.3), (3) Breach of Warranty of Habitability (Civ. Code §1942.4), (4) Negligence – Premises Liability, (5) Nuisance, (6) Battery, (7) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”), (8) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (“NIED”), (9) Breach of Contract, and (10) Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment.
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 B&P Code section 17200 – injunctive relief and appointment
CARMELITA GOMEZ, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS PARITOSH MAZUMDER, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.
On April 25, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants MAZ Management LLC, Paritosh Mazumder (Defendants”) and Does 1-20 for: Negligence Nuisance Breach of Lease Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability On September 18, 2019, this case was transferred from Department 3 (personal injury hub) to this instant department. 1. Defendants’ Demurrer Legal Standard A special demurrer may be made on the basis that the pleading is uncertain. (CCP § 430.10(f).)
RELEVANT & BRIEF BACKGROUND On August 8, 2018, Plaintiffs Eugene Shampansky (“Eugene”) and Yana Shampansky (“Yana”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Oceans 11 RV Park LLC, Oceans 11 RV Rentals & Storage, and DOES 1-25, asserting causes of action for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of warranty of habitability.
Plaintiffs are former tenants who are suing their former landlord for breaches of the warranty of habitability, retaliation and violations of the Richmond Rent Ordinance and other related claims. Defendant demurs to all claims based on collateral estoppel. Defendant also demurs to causes of action four, five and eight based on the failure to state a cause of action and to cause of action eight for uncertainty.
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. On April 25, 2019, the Court entered default against Defendant.
Thus, the Court will allow Plaintiff leave to amend the operative complaint so that Plaintiff may attach the lease agreement to the amended pleading as Plaintiff failed to do so with the initial complaint and the FAC. 2. 2nd cause of action for tortious breach of warranty of habitability Avalon Defendants argue that the tortious breach of warranty of habitability cause of action fails because Plaintiff has not alleged that Avalon Defendants were on notice of the substandard conditions within a reasonable time
Young dba Normandie Mobile Home Park and Lucas & Hollingsworth Real East Management for (1) premises liability – negligence, (2) tenant harassment/retaliatory eviction, (3) nuisance, (4) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, (5) breach of the warranty of habitability, (6) IIED, and (7) constructive eviction.
Complaint Plaintiff Castro commenced this proceeding on January 2, 2020, alleging causes of action for (1) retaliation, (2) breach of warranty of habitability, (3) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, (4) violation of Civ. 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.
Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability 5. NIED 6. IIED A motion to strike lies either when (1) there is “irrelevant, false or improper matter inserted in any pleading”; or (2) to strike any pleading or part thereof “not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule or order of court.” (CCP § 436.) The basis for punitive damages must be pled with specificity.
CENTURY-NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS WHALER'S RUN OF LONG BEACH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, ET AL.
The Second Amended Complaint asserts causes of action for: (1) negligence (premises liability); (2) breach of implied warranty of habitability; (3) constructive eviction; (4) nuisance; and (5) breach of contract. The SAC alleges Kirwan leased a residential unit from Cope from November 15, 2013 to October of 2015. Kirwan alleges the Defendants negligently maintained the property causing toxic mold growth.
The Complaint alleges seven causes of action for: 1) breach of contract; 2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; 3) breach of the implied warranty of habitability; 4) intentional misrepresentation; 5) negligent misrepresentation; 6) constructive eviction; and 7) negligence. The allegations of the Complaint arise out of a lease agreement for a high-end Hancock Park residential property located at 136 Freemont Place, Los Angeles, CA 90005 (the "Premises").
MUN JEONG CHOI VS C & L PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT LLC ET AL
First Cause of Action – Implied Warranty of Habitability Defendants demur to this cause on the grounds that the lease was not a residential lease, and thus has no implied warranty. Indeed, a warranty of habitability is implied in all residential rental agreements. (Green v. Superior Court (1974) 10 Cal.3d 616, 629; accord CACI 4320.) However, Defendants rely on extrinsic evidence to establish that Plaintiff entered into a commercial lease.
STEPHANIE TATE, ET AL. VS MAYURKUMAR PATEL, ET AL.
First Cause of Action (Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability). The elements of a cause of action for breach of the implied warranty of habitability are: (1) the existence of a material defective condition affecting the premises' habitability, (2) notice to the landlord of the condition within a reasonable time after the tenant's discovery of the condition, (3) the landlord was given a reasonable time to correct the deficiency, and (4) resulting damages. Erlach v.
LIM V. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.
Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability (5th Cause of Action) As with the sixth cause of action, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s fifth cause of action for breach of the implied warranty of habitability under the Song-Beverly Act is facially time- barred, specifically by the four-year statute of limitations set forth in Commercial Code section 2725. Defendant contends that this limitations period begins to accrue when tender of delivery is made and therefore Plaintiff’s claim is clearly time-barred.
HEATHER BENNETT VS BYUNG W KANG ET AL
On May 21, 2018, Plaintiff filed the operative first amended complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants for (1) violation of Los Angeles Municipal Code; (2) breach of warranty of habitability; (3) violation of Health and Safety Codes; (4) breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment; (5) nuisance; (6) retaliatory and constructive eviction; (7) breach of contract; (8) fraud; (9) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200; (10) negligence; (11) negligence per se; (12) intentional infliction of emotional distress
AG-WISE ENTERPRISES, INC. ET AL VS AGROMILLORA CALIFORNIA
The demurrer to the fourth cause of action for breach of the warranty of habitability is overruled on the grounds that Defendant failed to meet its burden of proof on demurrer and the FAC contains a properly pled cause of action for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. (See, FAC 43-50.) The demurrer to the fifth cause of action is sustained on the grounds that Plaintiffs fail to state a cause of action for trespass to agricultural property. The Court grants leave to amend.