Elmassian v. Flores (2021)

Citation: Elmassian v. Flores (2021)
Parent Document: Elmassian v. Flores (2021)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2021-09-27
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5291317/elmassian-v-flores/ ↗

Full Text

1,992 chars

8
served, when he was “sent videos of a fight that occurred in front of their doorway,” and when
he “received several complaints at that time also in writing,” that “there was fighting going on
between [defendant and Oscar].”
Matthew Conrad Kaczorowski, a managing broker for the property management
company employed by plaintiff, testified he was unaware of defendant requesting that repairs
be performed. Jovan Avalos was a field supervisor for the company, and he was a man, not a
woman, as claimed by defendant. Jovan Avalos was not supposed to have any contact with the
tenants at the property other than to serve eviction notices. The motivation to evict defendant
“was strictly nuisance. We were having problems. All of the tenants in the building were
having problems with this tenant.”
Ruling on the Defense
In considering whether to allow the jury to consider the domestic violence affirmative
defense, the court indicated defendant provided a copy of the emergency protective order and
restraining order. The restraining order stated a hearing was conducted on January 3, and that
on that day William E. Arevalo was ordered to stay away from defendant and the apartment.
The court also noted it was given copies of two reports which defendant referred to in her
testimony, one dated May 5 and the other June 12.
As to the use of any domestic violence committed by Will as a defense, the court
determined the emergency protective order and restraining order satisfied the documentation
requirement in the statute. (§ 1161.3, subd. (a)(1).) However, the court found the defense was
precluded, because Will “was a tenant of the living unit when this domestic violence
occurred.”8
Regarding the use of domestic violence by Oscar as a defense, the court found the June
report documented an incident that occurred after the notice to quit was served and could not be
used. The court also determined the reports provided were “notices only,” and “there is

Other Sections in This Document (74)

Full Text