1
Defendants and appellants Jenny Rosales and Richard A. Charlemagne1 appeal the
judgment entered in favor of plaintiff and respondent John R. De Paolo, Trustee of the De
Paolo Trust Dated August 14, 1995, following a bench trial. Defendants contend that evidence
was insufficient to prove a valid termination notice was served; the 30-day notice was void
because it violated the Tenant Protection Act which applies to “term[in]ation of a tenancy based
on an employment agreement”; Rosales was a tenant and “not merely an employee provided
housing as compensation for her job”; and the termination notice was also defective because it
was for 30 days instead of 60 days. As explained below, we affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Complaint
On August 22, 2024, plaintiff (owner and trustee) filed an unlawful detainer complaint
against Rosales and all unnamed occupants based on a 30-day notice to quit. The complaint,
which indicated that the tenancy was subject to the Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (TPA) (Civ.
Code § 1946.2), alleged that on or about December 1, 2020, Rosales and “all unnamed
occupants of the premises” agreed to pay monthly rent of $710 pursuant to a written agreement.
A copy of the written “resident manager’s agreement” was attached to the complaint. It was
signed and executed on December 1, 2020, by John De Paolo, as trustee of the John De Paolo
trust and owner, and Jenny Rosales as resident manager. The agreement provided in pertinent
part, as follows:
“1) Owner has an ownership interest in the real property located at 14000 Dickens
Street, Sherman Oaks, California (the ‘Premises’) . . . . [¶] . . . [¶]
. . . Owner and Resident Managers[2] agree as follows: