Gombiner v. Swartz, 167 Cal. App. 4th 1365 (2008)

Citation: Gombiner v. Swartz, 167 Cal. App. 4th 1365 (2008)
Parent Document: Gombiner v. Swartz, 167 Cal. App. 4th 1365 (2008)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2008-10-29
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2259791/gombiner-v-swartz/ ↗

Full Text

845 chars

The court trial—named “Phase 1” by the parties—took place in February and March 2006. At the end of Phase 1, the court found the February 2000 settlement and two lease amendments did not violate the RSO because the parties were sophisticated professionals who knew about the ordinance and had negotiated their agreements at arm’s length represented by counsel and “supervised” by a retired superior court judge. The court also found landlord had restored the property to a single-family residence as of November 17, 2004. Based on the trial court’s findings in Phase 1, landlord filed a second amended cross-complaint adding a cause of action for breach of the lease. He argued tenant’s refusal to pay rent since Judge Abrams’s ruling in August 2004 lacked legal justification because Phase 1 established the lawfulness of those increases. *1370

Other Sections in This Document (66)

Full Text