25
KUMAR, ACTING P.J., DISSENTING:
I respectfully dissent. The Legislature has forbidden a landlord from terminating a lease
“based upon an act or acts against a tenant . . . that constitute domestic violence . . . .”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 1161.3, subd. (a).) The defense is viable if (1) the domestic violence is
documented by, for example, a restraining order or police report (Code Civ. Proc., § 1161.3,
subd. (a)(1)(A)-(E)), and (2) the abuser “is not a tenant of the same dwelling unit as the tenant.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 1161.3, subd. (a)(2)). Because the unlawful detainer was not “based upon”
acts of domestic violence and the evidence did not support such a defense, Code of Civil
Procedure section 1161.3 was inapplicable. The trial court properly granted a directed verdict
on this issue and properly refused to instruct on the defense.
Was the unlawful detainer “based upon” any act of domestic violence?
No. The three-day notice is incorporated into the complaint and is the gravamen of the
unlawful detainer action. The three-day notice alleged, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
section 1161, subdivision (4), defendant and her husband must vacate the property because they
were “committing waste upon the demised premises” or were engaged in activities amounting
to a nuisance. It provided, “You have violated [the statute] as follows: [¶] Lessees have
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, and
damaging the vehicles of other tenants in the building. Lessees constantly have a large number
of invitees that loiter on the property who are actively using and selling narcotics on the
premises. Lessees and their guests routinely harass and intimidate the other tenants in the
building by threatening gang violence type retaliation if the other tenants make any complaints
about them.”
The purpose behind the three-day notice is to give the tenant the opportunity to
determine whether to quit the property or contest the allegations. (Lee v. Kotyluk (2021) 59
Cal.App.5th 719, 731; see also Delta Imports, Inc. v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles Judicial
District (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 1033, 1036 [If the three-day notice fails to properly advise the
tenant of the alleged breach, “the tenant cannot know whether to comply with the notice to quit