Fernandes v. Singh (2017)

Citation: Fernandes v. Singh (2017)
Parent Document: Fernandes v. Singh (2017)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2017-11-02
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4440239/fernandes-v-singh/ ↗

Full Text

1,262 chars

1
appeal through counsel. While Rawat and the Trust remain represented by counsel on
appeal, Singh now represents himself.1
          On appeal, Rawat claims error in the trial court’s denial of her motion to vacate
the judgment based on lack of service, and attacks the punitive damage award. Singh
also challenges the punitive damage award, disputes service on Rawat, and contends
the attorney fee award was excessive. Finding no merit in defendants’ claims, we shall
affirm.
                                      BACKGROUND
          On June 17, 2013, Fernandes sued Singh and Rawat, both as individuals and as
trustees of the Trust, alleging (among other theories) breach of the warranty of
habitability, conversion of personal property, and wrongful eviction. The lawsuit
followed three unlawful detainer complaints filed by defendants after Fernandes
exercised her right to complain about the substandard conditions of her rental unit.
          Former attorney Oliver filed an answer “for Defendants,” denying the allegations
and raising the affirmative defense that Fernandes breached the rental agreement. He
also filed a cross-complaint “for Defendants,” purportedly in the name of “Raj Singh, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated.”2

Other Sections in This Document (44)

Full Text