2
Banuelos v. Butler (Dec. 22, 2010, B223120 [nonpub. opn.].)
3
Background: Banuelos III.
Prior to the verdict in Banuelos II, Banuelos filed this action against
218 Properties and LA Investment, LLC, which he alleged to be the joint owners of
Park Granada. Banuelos also sued the managers of the property. The third amended
complaint, filed in August 2011, following the verdict in Banuelos II, charges defendants
with statutory and common law retaliation, bad faith, intentional and negligent
interference with economic advantage and negligence. Defendants demurred to each
count of the complaint on the ground that it failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a
cause of action. The trial court sustained the demurrers without leave to amend and
dismissed the action as to all defendants except 218 Properties, which had a pending
cross-complaint against Banuelos.
Banuelos filed a timely appeal.
DISCUSSION
I. THE COMPLAINT STATES A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
RETALIATION UNDER SECTION 1942.5 BUT NOT
UNDER THE COMMON LAW.
A. Retaliation Under Section 1942.5
Under section 1942.5 it is unlawful for a lessor to “bring an action” against a
lessee to “recover possession . . . for the purpose of retaliating against the lessee because
he or she . . . has lawfully and peaceably exercised any rights under the law.”
In his first cause of action, Banuelos alleged that he was a tenant of Park Granada
as of May 2010. Defendants served him with a five-day notice to vacate on or about June
1, 2010, and soon after filed an eviction action against him. He alleged that these acts
violate section 1942.5 and the common law of California because they were done in
retaliation for, among other things, complaining orally and in writing to the City of
Carson and the courts about the defendants’ alleged unlawful acts and omissions.
The complaint states a cause of action for retaliation under section 1942.5.
Banuelos’s right to complain to the city about defendants’ alleged wrongful acts and to
file a lawsuit are both protected under the law.