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

1,052 chars

Bisno contends the unlawful detainer action constituted malicious prosecution because there was no probable cause to seek a Costa-Hawkins increase of $4,295 when paragraph 12 of the lease limited any such increase to $2,000. He contends there was no probable cause to seek a Costa-Hawkins increase in any amount because Jeanette was an original tenant, the rent control hearing officer found she was not a subtenant, as asserted in Emmett’s Costa-Hawkins demand, and because of Emmett’s acceptance of rent after she moved in. In connection with the advice-of-counsel defense, Bisno contends Emmett did not provide Mordoh with the tenant file, which included documents that cast doubts on the validity of a Costa-Hawkins rent increase. He also contends Boge and Hotch were aware of paragraph 12, but failed to point it out to either Sherwood or Mordoh. Therefore, according to Bisno, there were triable issues of fact concerning whether Emmett fulfilled its duty to make full disclosure to counsel for purposes of the advice-of-counsel defense. *1545 4.

Other Sections in This Document (132)

Full Text