Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)


Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

Plaintiff entered into a license agreement allowing defendant to use part of plaintiff's property to make films.  The license agreement stated expressly that it was not a lease and landlord-tenant laws did not apply.  This decision holds that the advantage of a fast unlawful detainer proceeding is a private right that a landlord can waive and that plaintiff did by… Read More

If the tenant surrenders possession, an unlawful detainer action is converted into a normal civil action.  At that point, but not before, the tenant can file a cross-complaint.  This decision holds that the tenant does not waive or forfeit cross-claims against the landlord by not pleading them initially in response to the unlawful detainer complaint or by surrendering possession before… Read More

COVID-19 closure orders did not excuse Fitness' nonperformance of its lease obligations.  The closure orders allowed commercial construction and so did not justify its stopping renovation of the leased premises as required by the lease.  The force majeure clause of the lease didn't excuse either stopping construction or failing to pay rent as neither of those "acts" were prevented by… Read More

The trial court erred in sustaining defendants' demurrer to the class action allegations of the complaint in this case which sought actual and punitive damages for the defendants' misuse of the Ellis Act to evict tenants from rent-controlled units and then to list units in the same building on AirBnB for tenancies of up to three years.  The decision holds… Read More

Under the Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (Civ. Code 1946.2), a landlord cannot terminate a lawful tenancy after a year of its duration except for just cause--either a tenant default or a landlord move-in or removal of the unit from the rental market.  This decision holds that there is a triable issue of fact as to whether that section applies. … Read More

Under Civ. Code 1943, an agreement to rent or lease real property is presumed to be month-to-month unless stated otherwise in writing, except that for real property used for agricultural or grazing purposes, the presumed term is year-to-year unless otherwise expressed in the rental agreement or lease.  Here, assuming arguendo that a cannabis grower (of plants in pots set on… Read More

A third party’s occupancy and payment of rent may lead to a permissive inference, but not a mandatory presumption, of assignment of the lease to the third party in breach of an anti-assignment clause in the lease.  Here, a woman rented the apartment but did not occupy it for extended periods while she was outside the country attending to her… Read More

Under the 2019 Tenant Protection Act (Civ. Code 1946.2), a landlord may not terminate the tenancy of a tenant who has occupied the premises for more than 12 months absent "just cause."  Under section 1946.2(b)(1)(K), "just cause" includes the tenant failing to move out after having given the landlord written notice of the tenant's intention to terminate the tenancy or… Read More

Los Angeles County's rent control ordinance requires a landlord to submit a copy of a three-day notice to pay rent or quit to the LA County Dept. of Consumer & Business Affairs.  This decision holds that while the notice requirement is mandatory, the ordinance does not make compliance with that requirement either a condition precedent to eviction that the landlord… Read More

Civ. Code 1962 requires a residential landlord to give the tenant notice of the name, phone number and street address of each owner and manager of the premises and to update that information if it changes, as by sale of the property to a new owner.  The statute forbids service of a notice to quit or commencement of an unlawful… Read More

A shopping center landlord was not entitled to immunity from an independent contractor's personal injury suit under Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689 because the landlord did not hire the contractor.  A shopping center tenant did.  Also, the landlord did not delegate to the tenant the landlord's responsibility for maintaining in safe condition the portion of the premises… Read More

Landlord's taking possession of premises and re-leasing it to a third party did not moot defendant's appeal from denial of its motion to set aside the default judgment in the landlord's unlawful detainer against it.  The appellate court could still grant relief in the form of restitution under CCP 908 either in kind (i.e., restoration of possession) or in money. Read More

The Ellis Act does not preempt San Francisco's Rent Ordinance section 37.9A which requires landlords exercising their right to remove units from the rental market to give the displaced tenants a specific notice of their right to relocation payments and to make the required relocation payments.  This decision also holds that strict, not substantial compliance, is required with the ordinance's… Read More

The insured landlord's CGL policy excluded claims for claims arising out of actual or claimed uninhabitable conditions on the premises--and all other claims (whether or not otherwise covered) which were alleged in the same suit as claims for non-habitability.  This decision holds that the exclusion was plain, clear, conspicuous, and enforceable.  As a result, the exclusion relieved the insurer of… Read More

Landlord violated Pasadena's eviction control ordinance by failing to offer tenants a one-year lease after giving them notice of a rent increase.  Also, the landlord violated the ordinance in treating as cause for eviction the presence on the premises of the husband and daughter of one of the authorized tenants.  The ordinance requires landlords to allow occupancy by dependent minors… Read More

The Ellis Act re-subjects to rent control units that are taken off the market under the Act but then are re-rented within five years thereafter.  (Gov. Code 7060.2(d).)  That provision prevails over Civ. Code 1954.52 which exempts separately alienable single family dwellings or units from rent control.  So, the landlord did not evade rent control by withdrawing five units on… Read More

Disagreeing with Grand Prospect Partners, L.P. v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc. (2015) 232 Cal.App.4th 1332, this decision holds that a co-tenancy clause in a shopping center lease, which allowed the tenant to drastically reduce its rent if less than 60% of the shopping center's space was leased to other tenants, was enforceable.  Failure of the shopping center to meet… Read More

1 2 3 4