2
The overarching theme of the majority opinion is that certain evidence may have led the
jury to believe the unlawful detainer was based on a nuisance created by the domestic violence
endured by defendant. The majority writes “the [three-day] 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, and damaging the vehicles of the other tenants in the
building[.]’” (Original italics.) The majority suggests the scope of the referenced language
includes acts of domestic violence endured by defendant and, for that reason, evidence of
defendant’s abuse at the hands of Oscar established at least one possible basis for the unlawful
detainer action—“[t]he evidence supported the defense that, to the extent the three-day notice
nuisance grounds were based on defendant and Oscar’s loud and disruptive fights and other
domestic violence incidents, the notice could not support the eviction under [Code of Civil
Procedure] section 1161.3.” There are several problems with this reasoning.
First, the language referenced by the majority in the three-day notice is not associated
with acts of domestic violence. Rather, it charges defendant and her husband with threatening
other tenants and cites a nonexclusive list of examples. “[N]ot limited to” refers to acts of the
indicated variety, not to acts of domestic violence. The bottom line is that the words the
majority lift from the three-day notice do not allege Oscar threatened defendant or that he had
engaged in any domestic altercations.
Second, the statutorily required documentation of Oscar’s domestic violence was limited
to the May 5, 2019 incident. But there is nothing in the record to indicate the May 5 incident
formed the basis of the eviction. There was no evidence that Singleton observed the May 5
incident, complained about it, or was even home when it occurred. Indeed, the evidence was
introduced by the defense through defendant’s testimony to show that Oscar was not an invitee;
rather, his visits were of his choosing. The May 5 event is not tied to any allegation in the
three-day notice or even to any testimony that it constituted an eviction-supporting nuisance on
the property.