Boston LLC v. Juarez (2015)

Citation: Boston LLC v. Juarez (2015)
Parent Document: Boston LLC v. Juarez (2015)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2015-10-02
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3006950/boston-llc-v-juarez/ ↗

Full Text

962 chars

Defendant’s oral motion to amend the answer failed to comply with California Rules of
Court, rule 3.1324, which requires a copy of the amended pleading be provided, accompanied
by a declaration regarding why the amendment was necessary. Since his claim of waiver due to
the February 26 notice was not in his original answer, and the proposed amendment was
improper, reversal is not warranted based on the court precluding defendant from defending the
case based on waiver on this ground. Moreover, defendant cites no case which holds that the
service of a three-day notice concerning a breach of a covenant different than a previously
served notice waives proceeding in unlawful detainer on the previously served notice. We
accordingly pass on the argument concerning waiver based on the February 26 notice without
further consideration. (See Troensegaard v. Silvercrest Industries, Inc. (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d
218, 228; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.883(a)(1)(A).)

Other Sections in This Document (72)

Full Text