Bisno v. DOUGLAS EMMETT REALTY FUND 1988, 174 Cal. App. 4th 1534 (2009)

Citation: Bisno v. DOUGLAS EMMETT REALTY FUND 1988, 174 Cal. App. 4th 1534 (2009)
Parent Document: Bisno v. DOUGLAS EMMETT REALTY FUND 1988, 174 Cal. App. 4th 1534 (2009)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2009-06-19
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2267097/bisno-v-douglas-emmett-realty-f... ↗

Full Text

913 chars

According to the lawyer, Costa-Hawkins did not apply because Jeanette was an “original occupant” of the unit, had lived there for some time with Emmett’s knowledge and consent, and was not a subtenant. The letter threatened a malicious prosecution action and a claim for attorney’s fees for defending the unlawful detainer action. Mordoh read Bisno’s lease again and realized he had missed paragraph 12, which set the rent in case of a sublease or assignment at $2,000 per month, an amount that would control under the Costa-Hawkins Act. Although Mordoh believed a Costa-Hawkins rent increase in the reduced amount would be valid, he recommended that Emmett dismiss the unlawful detainer action for several reasons: the costs of proceeding with that action; the likelihood of an appeal by Bisno if he lost; the cost of attorney’s fees if Bisno prevailed; and the termination of the preliminary injunction in Bisno

Other Sections in This Document (132)

Full Text