Section 1942

Citation: Section 1942
Parent Document: Winslett v. 1811 27th Ave., LLC, 237 Cal. Rptr. 3d 25 (2018)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2018-08-15
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6239848/winslett-v-1811-27th-ave-llc/ ↗

Full Text

1,597 chars

Drouet does not compel a contrary conclusion. In that case, a landlord filed an Ellis Act unlawful detainer action in what he claimed was an effort to withdraw his rental unit from the market, and his tenants raised a defense of retaliatory eviction. In writ of mandate proceedings posing the question whether tenants facing eviction pursuant to the Ellis Act may raise such a defense, the high court answered, yes, they may, but the landlord may rebut such a defense upon proof of a bona fide intent to withdraw the rental unit from the market as an action undertaken "for any lawful cause" under section 1942.5, former subdivision (d). ( Drouet , supra , 31 Cal.4th at pp. 594, 599-600, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 205, 73 P.3d 1185.) Here, unlike the situation in Drouet , where the landlord contended he filed an unlawful detainer action because he believed it was lawful to do so under the Ellis Act, all of the retaliatory conduct at issue took place before the settlement of the unlawful detainer action. Whatever explanations Sagi may have for his claimed retaliatory conduct, he cannot *43justify it by pointing to an agreement he had yet to make. Nor could Winslett's agreement to move out somehow retroactively cloak Sagi's prior actions with "lawful cause," at least not in the absence of a release extinguishing claims for prior conduct. When the unlawful detainer action at issue in this case settled, Sagi had the ability to seek such a release if he wished to avoid further controversy, but for whatever reason he failed to do so. *259D. Claim Under The Oakland Just Cause For Eviction Ordinance

Other Sections in This Document (73)

Full Text