14
employment relationship, then they cannot be found guilty of “unlawfully detaining” the
premises. (Id. at pp. 913–917.) “If [the] defense is proven, the landlord is not entitled to a
judgment of possession as a matter of law.” (Boyd, supra, 227 Cal.App.4th at p. Supp. 9.)
Defendant bears the burden of proving that the plaintiff had a “retaliatory motive by a
preponderance of the evidence” and that the termination of her employment was
unlawful. (See Western Land Office, Inc. v. Cervantes (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 724, 733
(Cervantes).)
The trial court found that Rosales had not met her burden of production of evidence
sufficient to show that termination of her employment was unlawful or that her eviction was
retaliatory. In our review of the record, aside from Rosales’s allegation in her email dated
August 10 in response to the employment termination letter and 30-day notice, and her
statement at trial that plaintiff was “violating [her] rights,” we found no evidence that
demonstrated that plaintiff brought the instant action for the purpose of retaliating against
Rosales because she lawfully and peaceably exercised any rights under the law. The trial court
correctly concluded that defendants failed to meet their burden of establishing a retaliatory
motive. (Cervantes, supra, 175 Cal.App.3d at p. 733.)
Notice
Defendants allege that the judgment must be reversed because the evidence was
insufficient to prove that a valid termination notice was served as required by the TPA. As
discussed in detail ante, Rosales had no right to occupy the premises independent of her
employment as the resident manager and Charlemagne’s ability to occupy the premises was
only as one of Rosales’s additional occupants. Thus, once Rosales’s employment terminated,
so did both defendants’ right to occupy the premises. As they were not lawful tenants, the TPA
protections, including notice, did not apply. (Chan, supra, 203 Cal.App.3d at pp. Supp. 24-25;
accord, Karz v. Mecham, supra, 120 Cal.App.3d at p. Supp. 4.)
Indeed, the evidence adduced at trial established that Rosales signed the resident
manager’s agreement wherein she explicitly agreed that plaintiff could terminate her
employment at any time with or without cause, without advance notice and that she and her
occupants were required to vacate the premises within 30 days following her employment