Elmassian v. Flores (2021)

Citation: Elmassian v. Flores (2021)
Parent Document: Elmassian v. Flores (2021)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2021-09-17
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5094726/elmassian-v-flores/ ↗

Full Text

1,481 chars

supported by both domestic violence and non-domestic violence evidence. (See Cahill v. San
Diego Gas & Electric Co., supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at p. 956.) We hold the judgment cannot be
justified on this basis.
       We proceed to conclude the court erred in granting the directed verdict due to the
perceived deficiencies in defendant’s documentation as to Oscar’s domestic violence, and
further find there was substantial evidence to support the defense.
       In our analysis, we do not decide if the court erred in granting the verdict on the defense
based on defendant failing to provide plaintiff notice of domestic violence as to Oscar. Even if
the court was correct in finding such notice was required, lack of notice was not a reason to bar
the defense. Defendant testified she called Jovana Avalos, a person defendant believed was a
manager, and she told Avalos prior to being served with the eviction notice what happened with
Oscar in April and in May. Defendant’s testimony was buttressed by evidence there was a
Jovan Avalos who was a field supervisor for the property management company. Plaintiff
presented proof that there was no person named Jovana Avalos and that the call was not made.
However, we cannot affirm the ruling granting a directed verdict on grounds of notice under the
facts presented, as an appellate court is not allowed to weigh the evidence or consider the
credibility of witnesses, and instead must accept the evidence most favorable to a party

Other Sections in This Document (77)

Full Text