Runnymede Holdings, LLC v. Foster (2023)

Citation: Runnymede Holdings, LLC v. Foster (2023)
Parent Document: Runnymede Holdings, LLC v. Foster (2023)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2023-11-01
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9436573/runnymede-holdings-llc-v-foster/ ↗

Full Text

1,481 chars

3
under Civil Code section 1950.5,3 which he asserted defines a security deposit as an advance
payment of rent, and whether plaintiff brought the action in retaliation for defendants’
continued inability to pay rent given plaintiff was aware Foster had suffered a loss of income as
a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
       Plaintiff’s counsel asserted the increase in the security deposit was justified because of
high inflation and so that plaintiff could obtain sufficient security from defendants in the event
they moved out and repairs were necessary because the old security deposit amount would not
adequately compensate plaintiff. Counsel added the eviction action was commenced due to
Foster’s failure to perform a covenant to pay the new security deposit within three days of
receiving the notice, not for nonpayment of rent. Further counsel stated COVID-19 protections
were inapplicable to the facts of this case because plaintiff did not seek to evict for nonpayment
of rent. He also argued defendants’ partial payment of $800 was not a complete tender of the
full amount owed and, thus, there was no waiver of the alleged breach, even if plaintiff had not
returned the payment to defendants, and, in any event, any such tender occurred after expiration
of the three-day notice period.
       After hearing argument, the court took the matter under submission. A minute order
dated August 16 reveals the court granted the motion for summary judgment against defendants

Other Sections in This Document (32)

Full Text