8
Respondents’ eleventh cause of action is for unlawful
retaliation. The alleged violation of Civil Code section 1942.5,
subdivision (d) “amount[s] to a ‘cause of action’ [for unlawful
retaliation] in the sense that it is alleged to justify a remedy.”
(Baral, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 395.) Civil Code section 1942.5,
subdivisions (h)(1) and (2) provide that “[a]ny lessor . . . who
violates this section shall be liable to the lessee in a civil action
for” both actual and punitive damages.
Civil Code Section 1942.5, subdivision (d) does not apply to
a lessor’s retaliation against a lessee where the retaliation takes
the form of the lessor’s filing a malicious prosecution action
against the lessee. The only action mentioned in the statute is
“an action to recover possession . . . for the purpose of retaliating
against the lessee . . . .” (Ibid.)
Civil Code section 1942.5, subdivision (j) provides, “The
remedies provided by this section shall be in addition to any
other remedies provided by statutory or decisional law.”
Appellants have not identified any remedy provided by statutory
or decisional law for a lessor’s retaliation against a lessee based
on the lessor’s filing of a malicious prosecution action against the
lessee.
The eleventh cause of action’s allegations about appellants’
malicious prosecution action and subsequent settlement
negotiations “merely provide context, without supporting a claim
for recovery.” (Baral, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 394.) They do not
“amount to a ‘cause of action’ in the sense that [they are made] to
justify a remedy.” (Id. at p. 395.) They do not “supply the
elements of a retaliation claim.” (Bonni, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p.
1012.) Such “[a]llegations of protected activity that merely
provide context, without supporting a claim for recovery, cannot