Winslett v. 1811 27th Avenue, LLC (2018)

Citation: Winslett v. 1811 27th Avenue, LLC (2018)
Parent Document: Winslett v. 1811 27th Avenue, LLC (2018)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2018-08-15
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4526968/winslett-v-1811-27th-avenue-llc/ ↗

Full Text

1,459 chars

7
       Since Sagi does not dispute that, if Winslett’s evidence is admissible, she met the
minimal burden necessary to make a prima facie case supporting the three disputed claims,
we turn to his arguments that those claims fail as a matter of law.
       C.      Claims Under Section 1942.5, Subdivision (d)
       Section 1942.5, subdivision (d) provides that “it is unlawful for a lessor to increase
rent, decrease services, cause a lessee to quit involuntarily, bring an action to recover
possession, or threaten to do any of those acts, for the purpose of retaliating against the
lessee because he or she has lawfully organized or participated in a lessees’ association or
an organization advocating lessees’ rights or has lawfully and peaceably exercised any
rights under the law.” Subdivision (h) of the statute, in turn, states that “Any lessor or agent
of a lessor who violates [section 1942.5] shall be liable to the lessee in a civil action for all
of the following: [¶] (1) The actual damages sustained by the lessee. [¶] (2) Punitive
damages in an amount of not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than two
thousand dollars ($2,000) for each retaliatory act where the lessor or agent has been guilty
of fraud, oppression, or malice with respect to that act.” The landlord can defend against an
action for retaliatory eviction by showing that it acted “for any lawful cause” (§ 1942.5,
subd. (f)) or “in good faith” (id., subd. (g)).6

Other Sections in This Document (44)

Full Text