Primary practice area
Third District affirms that building and occupying an accessory dwelling unit in Sacramento County without a building permit is a public nuisance per se enforceable through injunctive relief, regardless of whether construction is complete.
Los Angeles Appellate Division holds that noncompliance with Civil Code section 1962 is an affirmative defense for which the tenant bears the burden of proof in a residential unlawful detainer action.
Second District holds that a recorded golf cart easement was not abandoned when the country club rerouted the path and that the easement was prescriptively expanded to include hedge and landscaping maintenance.
Second District affirms a comprehensive adjudication of the Las Posas Valley Groundwater Basin, upholding the trial court’s physical solution allocating water to overlying landowners and appointing Fox Canyon as watermaster.
Fourth District affirms a bench-trial finding that commercial tenants rebutted Civil Code section 1945’s presumption of month-to-month tenancy after their lease expired during COVID-19, where the tenants paid one month as a goodwill gesture and never agreed to continue.
Los Angeles Appellate Division reverses an unlawful-detainer default judgment and terminating sanction, holding the trial court abused its discretion by retroactively shortening Code of Civil Procedure section 1987’s 10-day notice period to 91 minutes and then striking the tenant’s answer for not appearing.
First District holds a program-level Environmental Impact Report for a local government’s general plan update need not include site-specific environmental analysis of housing-element inventory sites where no actual housing project has been proposed.
Los Angeles Appellate Division affirms an unlawful-detainer judgment against a resident manager whose tenancy was tied to her employment, holding the Tenant Protection Act’s 60-day notice and just-cause requirements do not apply where housing was provided as employment compensation under a written agreement.
Second District holds that California’s Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act gives applicants standing to sue for $10,000 in statutory damages without proving actual harm, but Unfair Competition Law claims still require a concrete economic injury.
Fourth District affirms denial of writ relief in a Housing-Element Law challenge, holding that subsequent draft revisions made to obtain HCD certification need not be re-noticed for public hearing or readopted by the City Council.