Eshagian v. Cepeda (2025)

Citation: Eshagian v. Cepeda (2025)
Parent Document: Eshagian v. Cepeda (2025)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2025-06-26
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10617811/eshagian-v-cepeda/ ↗

Full Text

1,448 chars

A.     The Tenancy, Three-day Notice, and Complaint
       Eshagian leased to Cepeda a residential unit in Van Nuys
(the premises). Pursuant to the lease agreement, Cepeda was
required to pay $1,000 a month in rent. On December 20, 2022
Eshagian served Cepeda with a “3 Day Notice To Pay or Quit.”
The notice stated Cepeda owed a total of $8,000 in unpaid rent
due from April 1 to November 1, 2022. The notice specified the
rent was to be paid to Eshagian by check, cashier’s check, or
money order; it listed the address of Cepeda’s unit as the
“[a]ddress to where rent may be delivered”; and it stated the rent
could be delivered any day of the week from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
The notice did not specify the date on which the three-day notice
commenced (simply listing “12/19/2022” on the notice to the left of
Eshagian’s signature with no explanation), nor did it state that
Cepeda would lose possession of the premises if he did not pay
the amount due by a specified date.
       On December 27, 2022 Eshagian filed a verified unlawful
detainer complaint alleging Cepeda did not pay the rent due.
The complaint sought possession of the premises, forfeiture of the
lease, unpaid rent of $8,000, holdover damages in the amount of
$33.33 per day from the date of expiration of the three-day notice
until the date of judgment, and reasonable attorneys’ fees. The
complaint attached a copy of the three-day notice and proof of
service as an exhibit.

Other Sections in This Document (49)

Full Text