Morrison v. Vineyard Creek L.P., 193 Cal. App. 4th 1254 (2011)

Citation: Morrison v. Vineyard Creek L.P., 193 Cal. App. 4th 1254 (2011)
Parent Document: Morrison v. Vineyard Creek L.P., 193 Cal. App. 4th 1254 (2011)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2011-03-29
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5810131/morrison-v-vineyard-creek-lp/ ↗

Full Text

1,148 chars

In any event, the parties and the trial court have focused not on the settlement agreement, but on whether the evidence demonstrated that Vineyard Creek in fact violated the antiretaliation statute or FEHA. Morrison contends that “[t]he issues on appeal [include] (1) whether Vineyard Creek’s threats of litigation for enforcing rights under the Day Care Act are unlawful under California’s antiretaliation statute; [and] (2) whether FEHA protects tenants from discrimination based on source of income when using their property as authorized under the Day Care Act.” Of course, consideration of the merits of Morrison’s antiretaliation and FEHA claims makes a lot of sense. In the first place, the merits of those claims may be germane to whether they substantially contributed to Vineyard Creek consenting to the relief Morrison obtained. Furthermore, it would certainly be anomalous for a party to recover attorney fees under claims that had no merit, simply because the party obtained relief due to other claims for which attorney fees could not be awarded. We therefore turn to the merits of Morrison’s claims. *1267B. Civil Code Section 1942.5

Other Sections in This Document (83)

Full Text