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

1,530 chars

4
you saying in those text messages about the parking . . .” Singleton’s response was, “I was
saying that [defendant] is back with her abuser.” (Italics added.) The majority posits, from the
italicized words, “it could be reasonably inferred . . . that Singleton had complained about
defendant being abused by Oscar previous to these two dates.” But, in context, Singleton was
simply advising the property manager that Oscar (identified as the “abuser”) was present at the
complex and, consistent with prior conduct, was parking in a way that blocked access to her
parking place; there is nothing in the record to suggest it was a reference to a prior complaint to
the landlord that domestic violence created a nuisance.4 While Singleton may have heard or
seen Oscar and defendant fighting before issuance of the three-day notice, those undocumented
acts were not a basis for the three-day notice; at most they could have served as evidence that
Singleton was legitimately afraid when she encountered them in the apartment complex.5
Conclusion
In the synopsis of the bill that triggered the enactment of Code of Civil Procedure
section 1161.3, the Assembly Committee on Judiciary wrote the following.
This . . . bill is premised on the fair and simple premise that a victim of
domestic violence should not be evicted from a home based on the actions
of a violent abuser. Unfortunately, according to the author, too often
victims are evicted from their homes because of the “nuisance” created by

Other Sections in This Document (74)

Full Text