3
response, Meyers wrote, “I was waiting for a response to my last email to you of Oct. 6,
concerning the latest 3 day notice and payment ledger, hoping to agree upon the amount
of back rent your clients owe. . . . [¶] . . . [¶] Again we ask that you negotiate or mediate
the rent owing and pay my client, then dismiss your action. If you persist in suing us,
you will create a conflict of interest between my client and myself/firm as you point out.”
A few days later, Meyers wrote to Reckas again, making further factual and legal
contentions and stating, “If I do not hear from you by 12:00 noon, tomorrow 11/13/2017,
we will assume that you do not wish to reasonably settle these matters now, and shall
proceed accordingly.”
The matter did not settle. Nor did defendants file an unlawful detainer based on
the October notice.
In late December, plaintiffs filed the operative first amended complaint, which
asserts six causes of action, four of which are at issue here and described below.
In the first cause of action for wrongful eviction, plaintiffs allege that defendants
violated a city rent ordinance by serving the October notice and demanding rent in excess
of the maximum amount allowable. Plaintiffs allege the notice was designed to trick
them into either paying an excessive amount of rent or vacating the premises, and there
was “no good faith contemplation of litigation, and, in fact, Defendants never filed an
unlawful detainer based upon the October 2 Notice prior to it being superseded” by a
subsequent three-day notice.
In the fourth cause of action for violation of Civil Code section 1950.5,
subdivision (b)(1),4 plaintiffs allege that “defendants” violated this statute by applying
plaintiffs’ security deposit towards the payment of rent when they were not actually in
default on rent payments.