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

1,458 chars

6
         There are two sets of remedial provisions in section 1942.5. First, subdivision (a)
prohibits certain acts by a landlord if they occur within 180 days of the tenant making
specified complaints (§ 1942.5, subd. (a)(1)-(2)) or of specified events occurring (id.,
subd. (a)(3)-(5)). Second, subdivision (d) provides that certain retaliatory acts by a landlord
are illegal. While subdivision (a) and subdivision (d) are somewhat different in scope—
most obviously because only a tenant who is not in default on her rent may invoke
subdivision (a)—subdivision (h) makes “[a]ny lessor . . . who violates this section . . . liable
to the lessee in a civil action.” Because subdivision (h) applies broadly to any violation of
“this section” (italics added), which of course includes subdivision (a), civil actions for
damages appear to be available for violation of subdivision (a), as well as subdivision (d).
       Without setting out an argument by separate heading, Winslett suggests as an aside
in her opening brief that her eighth and fifteenth claims are supported by subdivision (a) as
well as subdivision (d). But she does not explain why she is entitled to invoke subdivision
(a) even though the eviction here was indisputably based on nonpayment of rent. Perhaps
she would argue that she was current on her rent when the specific violations of section
1942.5, subdivision (a) she alleges took place; or perhaps she would take the position that

Other Sections in This Document (44)

Full Text