Fernandes v. Singh, 224 Cal. Rptr. 3d 751 (2017)

Citation: Fernandes v. Singh, 224 Cal. Rptr. 3d 751 (2017)
Parent Document: Fernandes v. Singh, 224 Cal. Rptr. 3d 751 (2017)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2017-10-05
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6239155/fernandes-v-singh/ ↗

Full Text

1,177 chars

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, 135 Cal.Rptr. 246 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, 135 Cal.Rptr. 246.) In this case Fernandes pleaded and proved malice, and several torts not subject to that damages cap. (See e.g., id. at p. 316, 135 Cal.Rptr. 246 [conversion]; Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood Apartments (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1055-1056, 90 Cal.Rptr.3d 453 [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.

Other Sections in This Document (61)

Full Text