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

2,340 chars

21
amended June 11, 2018, p. 7.) It was noted that, pursuant to the requirements of section
1161.3, “the tenant must have a temporary restraining order, protective order, or police report.
In other words, the tenant must interact with law enforcement,” and the third-party statement
was added as an option because “tenants may have legitimate reasons for avoiding contact with
law enforcement.” (Id. at p. 8.)
       The intent of requiring documentation was to forestall “unscrupulous tenants” from
making up domestic violence to defend evictions, and to make it easier for victims to be on
record as having been victimized. Requiring a victim to secure a detailed report naming the
perpetrator and his relationship to her would be inimical to the Legislature’s goals. Moreover,
since the intent was simply to have the tenant be on record as being a victim, requiring
documentation of multiple instances of violence would add burdens on victims not
contemplated by the statute.
Substantial Evidence Supporting the Defense
       Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer action was based on defendant having maintained,
permitted, and/or committed a nuisance. (§ 1161, subd. (4).) As noted in the three-day notice
and further developed at trial, there were three sets of facts relied on to prove the nuisance: (1)
using without authorization and blocking the parking spots designated to next door neighbor
Singleton and other tenants; (2) having persons who Singleton described as “vagrant looking
people, homeless looking people, people who look like drug addicts” come onto the property
and engage in drug sales and drug-related activity; and (3) threats, harassment, and intimidation
by defendant, Will, Oscar, and others coming onto the property that Singleton associated with
defendant.
       The three-day notice did not state the threats, harassment, and intimidation were based
on domestic violence, and portions of the notice appeared to relate to harassment and
intimidation by “threatening gang violence type retaliation if the other tenants make any
complaints about them.” Yet, the notice broadly provided the nuisance was based on defendant
having “engaged in repeated hostile threats towards the other tenants in the building, including,
but not limited to, blocking the parking access and spaces of the other tenants in the building,

Other Sections in This Document (77)

Full Text