Landlord-Tenant

​​​​​​Representative Cases

  • Landlord rented unit in a light industrial building without a proper Certificate of Occupancy and unpermitted work.  Tenant sued for refund of all rents paid plus treble damages under the Los Angeles City Municipal Code.

  • Tenant claimed that her premises were uninhabitable due to the presence of mold caused by leaks from her roof and air conditioner.  Further Tenant claimed that Landlord did not timely remediate the mold.

  • Landlord and Tenant dispute the cost and responsibility over build-outs for a restaurant.

  • Plaintiff and Defendant were romantically involved. Plaintiff invited Defendant to stay at the subject premises. Plaintiff and Defendant terminated their relationship and Plaintiff has withdrawn his consent to Defendant’s occupation of the premises and filed an unlawful detainer to remove her from the premises.

  • Plaintiffs leased a residential unit from Defendants pursuant to a written lease agreement. The unit was subject to rent control laws. Defendants attempted to remove Plaintiffs’ unit from the market and issued a Notice to Withdraw from Rental Market. Plaintiffs obtained a one-year extension for his tenancy due to his disability from the City of Los Angeles Housing and Community Investment Department and Plaintiffs’ tenancy was extended.

  • After obtaining the extension, Defendants allegedly engaged in multiple acts to drive Plaintiffs from the premises, including removing the washer and dryer from the building and leasing the unit above them to a tenant who had a vicious attack dog. Plaintiffs were ultimately constructively evicted by Defendants’ conduct and they left the premises.

  • Plaintiffs are residents of a 17-unit apartment building located in Santa Monica. After Plaintiffs went into possession, Defendants purchased the building. The building is subject to the Santa Monica Rent Control Ordinance and tenants’ rents are subject to maximum allowable rent. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants purchased the property with the intent of driving rent-controlled tenants from the building through harassment and interference with their quiet enjoyment of their residence. Defendant initiated construction without proper permitting, created conditions that were dangerous to the tenants’ health and interfered with the tenants’ ability to quietly enjoy their leasehold interests. Ultimately, tenant complaints to the City of Santa Monica Rent Control Board resulted in hearings on the issues of rent adjustments and rental conditions. The Board found Defendants had endangered the tenants and interfered with their tenancy by exposing them to lead and asbestos, as well as noise and vibration disturbances, and removing and interfering with security mechanisms. Defendants have not abated these dangerous conditions and Plaintiffs filed an action in response.

  • Plaintiff leased an apartment from Defendants. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants harassed her based on her national origin, race and ethnicity. Plaintiff claims Defendants continuously interfered with the quiet enjoyment of her premises.

  • Plaintiff is suing the assignee of a commercial lease and guaranty of that lease. Defendant personally guaranteed the commercial lease. Plaintiff alleges an outstanding balance on the lease of $40,000.

  • Plaintiff leased an apartment from Defendant pursuant to a written lease agreement for a term of one year. Thereafter, the parties agreed that the lease would be subject to two separate, self-executing 6-month extensions. Defendant also agreed to provide specific high-end services to building residents, including private elevators and security. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to provide all services promised, despite Plaintiff’s payment of full rent.

  • Plaintiff is a tenant at Defendants' rent-controlled premises in West Hollywood. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants wrongfully evicted him, raised his rent in violation of rent control ordinances, and verbally and physically harassed him.

  • Dispute between landlord-tenant over the wrongful withholding of a security deposit.

  • Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant for tenant harassment. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant advertised a condo unit on craigslist.com for rental; obtaining application fees, deposits and first month’s ren. Once the lease was signed, Defendant began to harass the Plaintiff until he prematurely terminated the tenancy. Defendant then refused to return the deposits. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant followed this course of action against several tenants. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant’s harassment included threats of bodily harm.

  • Plaintiffs leased a single-family dwelling from Defendant. Plaintiffs allege that the home was poorly maintained and suffered from numerous defects and conditions that rendered it uninhabitable. While these conditions existed, Plaintiffs paid excessive rent to Defendant. Plaintiffs vacated the premises after Defendant repeatedly refused to remedy the defects. After Plaintiffs vacated the premises, Defendant sent threatening emails, phone calls and text messages, making various improper demands and threats of improper litigation. Defendant also allegedly attempted to extort sums with these threats of litigation. In response, Plaintiffs paid $10,000 to mitigate any lost rental damages suffered by Defendants. Despite this payment, Defendant continued to harass Plaintiffs with threats that they would be responsible for various costs if they did not continue paying rent. Plaintiffs were forced to retain counsel and filed an action to stop Defendant’s continued threats and harassment.

  • Landlord-tenant dispute over the term of the lease.

  • Plaintiff is the insurer of a restaurant operating in the City of Santa Monica. A fire broke out in the duct/flue system of the restaurant which spread throughout the premises, resulting in substantial damages to the Premises.

  • Plaintiff paid the restaurant owners under the insurance policy and the restaurant owners assigned their right to recover any sums from any responsible parties to Plaintiff. Plaintiff filed an action for subrogation against Defendant who built out the restaurant including installation of the kitchen exhaust system, the ducts, fans and flues; against the Defendant who cleaned the kitchen exhaust system at the premises on a regular basis, including the ducts, flues and exhaust fans; and against the Defendant who moved the exhaust fans on the roof and added additional ducts and flues to the exhaust system pursuant to a written agreement with the landlord.

  • Landlord-tenant dispute over an option agreement.

  • Right of privacy claim by tenant against his landlord for giving over information to other tenants that he was taken away from his unit by the police on a “5150 hold.”

  • Unlawful Detainer action wherein the tenant claims that the premises are uninhabitable because 8 of the 9 bathrooms are not functional.

  • Unlawful Detainer action where the tenant claims that the premises are uninhabitable because the shower water, for no apparent reason, changed temperature from mild to extremely hot causing the tenant to sustain third degree burns.

  • Unlawful Detainer action based upon an unauthorized person in possession of the property.

  • Plaintiff alleges that Defendant engaged in a pattern and practice of harassing his tenant to force her out of her rent controlled- apartment. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant harassed her in the past by issuing her a letter accusing her of allowing an unauthorized person to stay in her apartment. The letter threatened eviction if she did not cure this alleged breach of lease agreement. After Plaintiff denied violating the lease and asserted that she merely allowed a guest to stay at the apartment for no more than 10 consecutive days at a time, Defendant installed security cameras. Plaintiff filed an action for tenant harassment because she claimed she felt unsafe and that the cameras invaded her right to privacy.

  • Plaintiff purchased a single-family home at foreclosure sale. Defendant is the former owner and current occupant of the premises. Plaintiff served Defendant with a 3-day notice to quit per CCP Section 1161a, governing post-foreclosure evictions. Defendant and other occupants are still in possession. Plaintiff filed an unlawful detainer action.

  • Plaintiff leased an apartment from Defendant. Defendant marketed the property as a luxury property with luxury amenities and services. Plaintiff alleges that contrary to Defendant’s representations, the complex was in fact marketed to college students and did not maintain the luxurious environment advertised. Specifically, Plaintiff’s neighboring tenants committed various offenses and breaches of lease without consequence.