Showing 1–20 of 457 results
(b) A landlord or their agent shall not retaliate against a tenant for exercising the tenant’s rights under this section, consistent with the protections provided in Section 1942.5.
(a) If the lessor retaliates against the lessee because of the exercise by the lessee of the lessee’s rights under this chapter or because of the lessee’s complaint to an appropriate agency as to tenantability of a dwelling...
(f) For any owner of housing accommodations to harass, evict, or otherwise discriminate against any person in the sale or rental of housing accommodations when the owner’s dominant purpose is retaliation against a person who has opposed practices unlawful...
(d) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), it is unlawful for a lessor to increase rent, decrease services, cause a lessee to quit involuntarily, bring an action to recover possession, or threaten to do any of those acts, for the purpose of retaliating...
...Tenant contends the notices and rent increase violated Civil Code section 1942.5, subdivision (c) which prohibits a landlord from retaliating against a tenant for exercising his legal rights. The jury found landlord had retaliated against tenant, but also concluded...
Regardless of whether the court correctly instructed the jury, we find that any error was harmless because the jury found landlord had retaliated against tenant for exercising his rights as a tenant. The instruction thus did not defeat tenant’s...
The court instructed the jury that tenant’s cause of action for retaliation required that he not be in default in paying rent. The court appears to have derived that requirement from subdivision (a) of Civil Code section 1942.5...
8 Respondents’ eleventh cause of action is for unlawful retaliation. The alleged violation of Civil Code section 1942.5, subdivision (d) “amount[s] to a ‘cause of action’ [for unlawful retaliation] in the sense that it is alleged to justify...
The requirement in section 1942.5, subdivision (a), as originally enacted, that the landlord “ ‘has as his dominant purpose retaliation against the lessee’ ” (Western Land Office, Inc. v. Cervantes, supra, 175 Cal.App.3d 724, 732, fn. 5) is replaced...
Defendant had the burden to prove the retaliation defense at trial, and thus had the burden of producing evidence of retaliation. (See Friedman et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Landlord-Tenant (The Rutter Group 2014) ¶ 7:367, p. 7-174.) The...
include” information explaining the lessor cannot retaliate against a lessee. (§ 17980.6, subd. (c), italics added.) It is undisputed that the May 21, 2002 Notice was neither conspicuously posted nor mailed, and that it omitted mention of the retaliation prohibition...
[3] The requirement in section 1942.5, subdivision (a), as originally enacted, that the landlord "`has as his dominant purpose retaliation against the lessee'" (Western Land Office, Inc. v. Cervantes, supra, 175 Cal.App.3d 724, 732, fn. 5, 220...
Under Civil Code section 1942.5, subdivision (c), Landlord may not raise rent to retaliate against Tenants’ participation in RCMP’s lessees’ association. Here, Landlord raised rent $80 following Tenants’ complaints to the City for rent control. This increase, if...
by the litigation privilege. A landlord who files an unlawful detainer action in retaliation
possession’ in retaliation for a tenant’s exercise of rights coupled with the provision
retaliation for the tenant’s lawful and peaceable exercise of her rights under law, is liable
“If the lessor has as his dominant purpose retaliation against the lessee because of” to
...ProjectCBD.com (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 869, 883.) The eleventh cause of action is entitled, “UNLAWFUL RETALIATION.” It alleges that appellants “have violated Civil Code section 1942.5(d) by decreasing services, increasing rent, causing [respondents] to quit involuntarily...
for the purpose of retaliating against the lessee because he or she has ... lawfully and peaceably exercised any rights under the law.”
Moramarco v. Nowakoski (citation pending) Date filed: 2026-03-27 Doctrine: retaliation Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10826990/moramarco-v-nowakoski/ --- 010combined ---