Section 1161

Citation: Section 1161
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

886 chars

29
and 9:00 p.m. (when presumably Eshagian would not be in the
rental unit), the notice did not meet the Legislature’s stated
purpose “to avoid confusion and ‘protect both landlords and
tenants alike, by setting forth clear rules for payment to whom
and where.’” (Sheehan, supra, 105 Cal.App.5th at p. 75.)
      Because the three-day notice failed to strictly comply with
section 1161(2), Eshagian failed to state a cause of action for
unlawful detainer, and the possession-only judgment must be
reversed. (See Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc., supra,
201 Cal.App.4th at p. 282 [“if the well-pleaded allegations of the
complaint do not state any proper cause of action, the default
judgment in the plaintiff’s favor cannot stand”]; Sheehan, supra,
105 Cal.App.5th at p. 75 [“service of a ‘valid three-day notice to
pay rent or quit is a prerequisite to an unlawful detainer
action’”].)

Other Sections in This Document (49)

Full Text