DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Showing 21–40 of 457 results

S. P. Growers Ass'n v. Rodriguez, 552 P.2d 721 (1976)

S. P. Growers Ass'n v. Rodriguez, 552 P.2d 721 (1976) California state

In the consolidated unlawful detainer proceeding below, defendants sought to raise two affirmative defenses: (!) plaintiff was unlawfully seeking to evict them in retaliation for their strike; and (2) the evictions were in retaliation for the federal suit filed by defendants...

Banuelos v. LA Investment CA2/1, 219 Cal. App. 4th 323 (2013)

Banuelos v. LA Investment CA2/1, 219 Cal. App. 4th 323 (2013) California state

...THE COMPLAINT STATES A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR RETALIATION UNDER SECTION 1942.5 BUT NOT UNDER THE COMMON LAW. A. Retaliation Under Section 1942.5 Under section 1942.5 it is unlawful for a lessor to “bring an action” against...

Section 1942

Winslett v. 1811 27th Ave., LLC, 237 Cal. Rptr. 3d 25 (2018) California state

...Growers ), a retaliation case that had nothing to do with tenantability. S.P. Growers created a variant of the Schweiger rule for retaliation against the exercise of legally protected rights. The landlord in that case was a corporate agricultural employer...

Section 1942

Barela v. Superior Court, 636 P.2d 582 (1981) California state

...725, 728.) In that case, a landlord was prohibited from evicting a tenant in retaliation for the tenant’s filing of a lawsuit alleging violations of the federal farm labor statute, since that law depended for its enforcement on the...

Morrison v. Vineyard Creek L.P., 193 Cal. App. 4th 1254 (2011)

Morrison v. Vineyard Creek L.P., 193 Cal. App. 4th 1254 (2011) California state

The court also found the retaliation claim to be meritless because the threats could not have been in retaliation for the subtenants’ exercise of their rights under the sublease, since the threats preceded the subtenants’ assertion that the sublease was...

Section 1942

EDC Associates, Ltd. v. Gutierrez, 153 Cal. App. 3d 167 (1984) California state

(1973) 14 Ill.App.3d 652 [303 N.E.2d 251], the tenants asserted retaliatory eviction principles in affirmative suits against their landlord, and failed to prove retaliation. (Id.,

Winslett v. 1811 27th Avenue, LLC (2018)

Winslett v. 1811 27th Avenue, LLC (2018) California state

...Growers), a retaliation case that had nothing to do with tenantability. S.P. Growers created a variant of the Schweiger rule for retaliation against the exercise of legally protected rights. The landlord in that case was a corporate agricultural employer...

Section 1942

Schweiger v. Superior Court, 476 P.2d 97 (1970) California state

...Although the court expressed agreement with petitioner that the landlord's rent increase and eviction action had been intended as retaliation against petitioner for asserting *511 his statutory rights, the court rejected, as a matter of law, petitioner's defense...

section 1942

Western Land Office, Inc. v. Cervantes, 175 Cal. App. 3d 724 (1985) California state

“If the lessor retaliates against the lessee because of.” We do not believe that this change in any way lessened the tenant’s burden of proving the landlord’s retaliatory motive by a preponderance of the evidence. As originally drafted...

Section 425

Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011) California state

As to their retaliation cause of action, the question is whether Wallace and Owen showed, by admissible evidence, any probability that they would prevail against McCubbin or Merck under Civil Code section 1942.5.

Section 1942

Barela v. Superior Court, 636 P.2d 582 (1981) California state

In an analogous area of law, this court has held that an employer cannot discharge an employee in retaliation for the employee’s exercise of a legally protected right. Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co.

section 1942

Rich v. Schwab, 63 Cal. App. 4th 803 (1998) California state

the court held that not only may a tenant use retaliation as a defense to an unlawful detainer action, a tenant may also allege an affirmative cause of action for retaliatory eviction. In Aweeka

section 1942

Rich v. Schwab, 63 Cal. App. 4th 803 (1998) California state

who has been subjected to an act of unlawful retaliation. Thus, on its face the statute provides protection to mobilehome park tenants who own their own dwellings and merely rent space from their landlord.

De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)

De Paolo v. Rosales (2026) California state

De Paolo v. Rosales (citation pending) Date filed: 2026-01-27 Doctrine: retaliation Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10780188/de-paolo-v-rosales/ --- 010combined --- Filed 12/22/25 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

section 17980

City of Santa Monica v. Gonzalez, 182 P.3d 1027 (2008) California state

Here, the City appears to acknowledge that section 17980.6 is obligatory to the extent it calls for posting and/or mailing of a notice to repair and reference to the retaliation prohibition.

section 1942

Western Land Office, Inc. v. Cervantes, 175 Cal. App. 3d 724 (1985) California state

...It would be incongruous to suggest that a tenant who claims retaliation for his complaint about tenantability (under subd. (a)) should have any lighter burden of proof than a tenant who claims retaliation for his participation in a lessees’ association...

section 1942

Western Land Office, Inc. v. Cervantes, 175 Cal. App. 3d 724 (1985) California state

to the landlord’s retaliatory motive, if any. If a subdivision (c) tenant has the burden of proof, we cannot perceive why a subdivision (a) tenant—the person who claims retaliation because of *742

Section 425

Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169 (2011) California state

Wallace and Owen fail to show any probability of prevailing on their claim against McCubbin and Merck for wrongful eviction based on the three-day notice, the unlawful detainer action, or any alleged unprotected activity. 3. Retaliation