Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Rich v. Schwab, 75 Cal. Rptr. 2d 170 (1998)

Citation
Rich v. Schwab, 75 Cal. Rptr. 2d 170 (1998)
Parent Document
Rich v. Schwab, 75 Cal. Rptr. 2d 170 (1998)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
1998-06-01

Other Sections in This Document (60)

Full Text

868 chars
Contrary to Dawes's argument, the holding in Murakami does not apply to the punitive damages assessed against Schwab. As the tenants point out, the amounts assessed against Schwab were awarded under the specific provisions of section 1942.5, rather than under the general provisions of section 3294 discussed in Murakami Of particular importance in considering the holding in Murakami is the fact that the amount of punitive damages available under section 1942.5 may be no less than $100 and no more than $1,000 for each violation when the elements of malice, oppression or fraud are present. The minimum and maximum levels of punitive damages set by the Legislature place the punitive damages awarded here in the distinct category of a statutory penalty or statutory damages. (See Beeman v. Burling (1990) 216 Cal.App.3d 1586, 1598-1599, 265 Cal.Rptr. 719 (Beeman).)