Elmassian v. Flores (2021)

Citation: Elmassian v. Flores (2021)
Parent Document: Elmassian v. Flores (2021)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2021-09-27
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5291317/elmassian-v-flores/ ↗

Full Text

1,487 chars

1
or remain in possession and contest the landlord’s allegations”].) Defendant elected to remain
in the residence and, once a complaint was filed, she filed an answer wherein she asserted
multiple defenses. She did not argue in her answer that the nuisance described in the three-day
notice was the product of any abuse she endured at the hands of Oscar.1 This is for a good
reason; the three-day notice made no reference to noise resulting from any altercation much less
an act of domestic violence. Rather, it specifically targeted two categories of conduct: the
manner in which defendant, her husband, and their guests treated “other tenants”; and the
loitering and drug activities engaged in by invitees. There was no hint in any of the pleadings
that the eviction had anything to do with domestic violence.
Did the evidence change the landscape of the case to include the possibility of an eviction
based upon an act of domestic violence?
No. The direct examination of Christine Singleton tracked the factual allegations in the
three-day notice. I need not repeat the facts summarized by the majority. Suffice it to say that
Singleton’s problems with her parking space (what she described as a “real nuisance” occurring
“nearly . . . every day”), “emotionally exhausting” conversations asking people to move their
cars, vandalism to her vehicle, “dirty looks” she received from defendant and her guests, and
rampant narcotics activity2 convincingly demonstrated a nuisance.3

Other Sections in This Document (74)

Full Text