Section 1803
- Citation
- Section 1803
- Parent Document
- Bohbot v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 827 (2005)
- Jurisdiction
- California (state)
- Effective Date
- 2005-10-13
Other Sections in This Document (121)
- Bohbot v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 827 (2005)
- Bohbot v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 827 (2005)
- Bohbot v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 827 (2005)
- Bohbot v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 827 (2005)
- Bohbot v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 827 (2005)
- Bohbot v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 827 (2005)
- Bohbot v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 827 (2005)
- Bohbot v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 827 (2005)
- Bohbot v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 827 (2005)
- Bohbot v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 827 (2005)
- Bohbot v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 827 (2005)
- Bohbot v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 827 (2005)
- Bohbot v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 827 (2005)
- Bohbot v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 827 (2005)
- Bohbot v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 827 (2005)
- Bohbot v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 827 (2005)
- Bohbot v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 827 (2005)
- Bohbot v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 827 (2005)
- Bohbot v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 827 (2005)
- Bohbot v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 827 (2005)
- Bohbot v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 827 (2005)
- Bohbot v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 827 (2005)
- Bohbot v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 827 (2005)
- Bohbot v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 827 (2005)
- Bohbot v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 827 (2005)
- Bohbot v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 827 (2005)
- Bohbot v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 827 (2005)
- Bohbot v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 827 (2005)
- Bohbot v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 827 (2005)
- Bohbot v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 827 (2005)
- Bohbot v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 827 (2005)
- Bohbot v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 827 (2005)
- Section 1806
- Section 1806
- Section 1806
- Section 1806
- Section 2004
- Section 2004
- Section 2004
- Section 2004
- Section 2004
- Section 2004
- Section 2004
- Section 2004
- Section 2004
- Section 2004
- Section 2004
- Section 2004
- Section 2004
- Section 2004
- Section 2004
- Section 2004
- Section 2004
- Section 2004
- Section 2004
- Section 2004
- Section 2004
- Section 2004
- Section 2004
- Section 2004
- Section 2004
- Section 2004
- Section 2004
- Section 2004
- Section 2004
- Section 2004
- Section 2004
- Section 2004
- Section 2004
- Section 2004
- Section 2004
- Section 2004
- Section 2004
- Section 2004
- Section 2004
- Section 2004
- Section 2004
- Section 1803
- Section 1803
- Section 1803
- Section 1803
- Section 1803
- Section 1803
- Section 1803
- Section 1803
- Section 1803
- Section 1803
- Section 1803
- Section 1803
- Section 1803
- Section 1803
- Section 1803
- Section 1803
- Section 1803
- Section 1803
- Section 1803
- Section 1803
- Section 1803
- Section 1803
- Section 1803
- Section 1803
- Section 1803
- Section 1803
- Section 1803
- Section 1803
- Section 1803
- Section 1803
- Section 1803
- Section 1803
- Section 1803
- Section 1803
- Section 1803
- Section 1803
- Section 1803
- Section 1803
- Section 1803
- Section 1803
- Section 1803
- Section 1803
- Section 1803
- Section 1803
Full Text
308 charsBohbot alleged he dismissed the unlawful detainer action because his attorney had advised him that the collection of rent “had probably reestablished [Cope’s] tenancy.” Cope’s counsel submitted a declaration suggesting Bohbot had dismissed the case rather than respond to Cope’s motion to compel discovery. 3