de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)

Citation: de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
Parent Document: de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2011-03-29
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5810133/de-la-cuesta-v-benham/ ↗

Other Sections in This Document (49)

de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)

Full Text

565 chars

On top of those basic disparities, there are Hsu’s “ ‘equitable considerations’ ” to consider: The tenant vacated the premises the day before trial was initially scheduled to begin, which, in equitable terms, was a clear victory for the landlord.6 Repossession of the premises was at least one of the landlord’s main litigation objectives, the litigation had clearly resulted in that repossession, and only the tenant’s unilateral llth-hour capitulation deprived the landlord of being able to say that the trial itself resulted in the achievement of that objective.