14
because of the pandemic by increasing the amount of their security deposit and, when the
tenants failed to pay that amount, landlords could evict them.9 Foster further contends, by
following that stratagem devised by its counsel, plaintiff pursued the eviction in bad faith to
prevent him from continuing to protect himself from an eviction for nonpayment of rent during
the pandemic because plaintiff knew Foster could not even pay rent let alone the increased
amount of security deposit.
It is uncontroverted plaintiff increased the amount of the security deposit after it had not
received rent from Foster for approximately two years during the pandemic, and there was no
evidence presented of plaintiff having increased the security deposit at any time before then.
Thus, Foster’s contention plaintiff acted in bad faith because it increased the amount of the
security deposit for no reason other than to manufacture a default to evict him creates a factual
issue to be resolved by the jury. This set of facts, combined with plaintiff counsel’s website
posting, may constitute evidence from which an inference of bad faith and retaliatory conduct is
“reasonably deducible.” (§ 437c, subd. (c); Merrill v. Navegar, supra, 26 Cal. 4th at p. 476;
Caliber Paving, supra, 54 Cal.App.5th at p. 190.) Thus, such evidence would be sufficient to
be submitted to the jury as the trier of fact. (Feldman v. 1100 Park Lane Assocs. (2008) 160
Cal.App.4th 1467, 1492-1493; Four Seas Inv., supra, 81 Cal.App.3d at p. 610.) Also, if the
jury were to find the increased security deposit amounted to an advanced payment of rent, “it is
unlawful for a lessor to increase rent . . . [or] bring an action to recover possession . . . for the
purpose of retaliating against the lessee . . . .” (Civ. Code, § 1942.5, subd. (d).)10