Elmassian v. Flores (2021)

Citation: Elmassian v. Flores (2021)
Parent Document: Elmassian v. Flores (2021)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2021-09-17
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5094726/elmassian-v-flores/ ↗

Full Text

1,498 chars

occasions to the defendant, as well as to others, and that this terrifies her and other tenants at
the property.”
Verdict and Judgment
       The jury returned a special verdict, unanimously answering “Yes” to questions on a
verdict form that asked, “1. Did [plaintiff] properly give [defendant] a [three-day] written
notice to quit?”; “2. Did [defendant] commit or permit a nuisance on the [p]roperty?”; and “3.
Did [plaintiff] file this lawsuit in good faith for a reason stated in the [three-day] notice to
quit?” As instructed in the form, because it answered question 3 in the affirmative, it did not
answer question 4, “Did [plaintiff] serve the [three-day] notice to quit in retaliation against
[defendant] for requesting repairs to the [p]roperty?”
       In accord with the verdict, the court on October 3 entered judgment in plaintiff’s favor.
The court awarded plaintiff possession of the property and forfeited the lease.
                                           DISCUSSION
       The propriety of a court granting a directed verdict as to a cause of action or defense is
subject to de novo appellate review. (Brassinga v. City of Mountain View (1998) 66
Cal.App.4th 195, 210; Colbaugh v. Hartline (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1516, 1521.) To the extent
a trial court’s ruling depends on construction of a statute, de novo review is also appropriate.
(Ceja v. Rudolph & Sletten, Inc. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 1113, 1119; Michael S. Yu, a Law Corp. v.
Superior Court (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 636, 644.)

Other Sections in This Document (77)

Full Text