On page 14 in footnote 8, a sentence is to be inserted at the end of the
footnote reading: “To the extent Singh relies on the $600 cap on statutory damages
provided by Code of Civil Procedure section 1174, subdivision (b), that provision applies
to unlawful detainer actions, and he has not explained how it is relevant to this regular
civil action based on wrongful eviction and related claims.” The footnote shall now read:
8.
Singh also argues that because the trial court imposed statutory penalties
it could not award punitive damages under Civil Code section 3294. But Civil Code
section 1942.5, subdivision (h), provides that statutory penalties are “in addition to any
other remedies” provided by law. Singh’s reliance on Cyrus v. Haveson (1976)
65 Cal.App.3d 306 is also unhelpful. That case held malice was not well-pled, and also
addressed a forcible entry claim for which statutory damages were then capped at three
times actual damages. (Id. at pp. 316-317.) In this case Fernandes pleaded and proved
malice, and several torts not subject to that damages cap. (See e.g., id. at p. 316
[conversion]; Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood Apartments (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th
1004, 1055-1056 [retaliatory eviction].) To the extent Singh relies on the $600 cap on
statutory damages provided by Code of Civil Procedure section 1174, subdivision (b),
that provision applies to unlawful detainer actions, and he has not explained how it is
relevant to this regular civil action based on wrongful eviction and related claims. This modification does not change the judgment. 2
FOR THE COURT: /s/
Blease, Acting P. J. /s/
Nicholson, J. /s/
Duarte, J. 3
EDITORIAL LISTING