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

2,059 chars

12
2006; § 1942.5, subds. (d), (h), as amended by Stats. 2017, ch. 489, § 6, No. 6 West’s Cal.
Legis. Service, pp. 3720-3721.) Taking common law rights recognized by the high court
over the preceding decade as a foundation, the Legislature enlarged and built upon the
limited scheme of statutory remedies it had first created in AB 2033.8 Barela v. Superior
Court (1981) 30 Cal.3d 244 (Barela) was the first case to come before the court under
section 1942.5, as so amended. The tenant in Barela faced eviction proceedings after
reporting a landlord’s sexual molestation of her daughter to the police. The trial court ruled
that the eviction was not barred by section 1942.5 or by the standards of S.P. Growers.
Drawing upon Edwards as a bellwether—as Schweiger did (Schweiger, supra, 3 Cal.3d at
p. 512), and as S.P. Growers did (S.P. Growers, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 725)—the court
granted writ relief.
       Over the landlord’s objection that extending S.P. Growers would hinder the
summary eviction process, the Barela court explained that “ ‘[s]ome delay, of course, is
inherent in any fair-minded system of justice. . . . Our courts were never intended to serve as
rubber stamps for landlords seeking to evict their tenants, but rather to see that justice be
done before a man (or woman) is evicted from his (or her) home.’ ” (Barela, supra,
30 Cal.3d at p. 244.) The court concluded that “[t]his case is an even stronger one than S.P.
Growers . . . wherein this court stressed the importance of preventing retaliatory
evictions . . . [through] a remedial scheme [that] depends upon private initiative for
enforcement. . . . [¶] The strong public policy interests in preserving the summary nature of
the unlawful detainer proceeding will not be significantly impaired if the affirmative
defense of retaliatory eviction is allowed here.” (Barela, supra, 30 Cal.3d at p. 244.)
       Barela also put to rest any remaining “notion that the common law retaliatory
eviction defense was preempted by statute,” thereby definitively confirming that “California

Other Sections in This Document (44)

Full Text