Section 1942

Citation: Section 1942
Parent Document: Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2003-08-11
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2585536/drouet-v-superior-court/ ↗

Full Text

980 chars

In addition, a contrary holding could permit tenants to force the landlord to remain in business indefinitely when, as here, the tenants have invoked section 1942.5, subdivision (c). This provision, which we have "denominated a `boilerplate' provision because of its broad prohibition against retaliation by a landlord when a tenant has exercised valid legal rights" (Barela v. Superior Court, supra, 30 Cal.3d at p. 251, 178 Cal.Rptr. 618, 636 P.2d 582), is "ongoing and not subject to the 180 day grace period or the limitation that it may only be invoked once a year, as are the other sanctions." (Review of Selected 1979 California Legislation (1979) 11 Pacific L.J. 601, 602.) As Justice Moreno concedes, the landlord could thus be compelled to remain in business indefinitely or, at the least, until a trier of fact determined that the retaliatory motive had dissipated. We are not persuaded the *218 Legislature envisioned such a cribbed interpretation of the Ellis Act.[5]

Other Sections in This Document (188)

Full Text