image of spinning marijuana leaf
palmspringsbum
Morongo Valley
Eviction
Appeal Rehearing Request CIV A.1197 6
Home
Timeline
Felony Cultivation
Eviction
HUD/DFEH Complaint
Appeal Rehearing Request CIV A.1197
April 19, 2005 - page 6



1 |
|
2 |
|
3 | unlawful detainer action (Marina Point Ltd. v. Wolfson (1982) 30 CA3d 721 9, 14).
|
4 | On February 17, 2004, Defendant prevailed in the Unlawful Detainer case that was filed
|
5 | against him by his landlord, Bonita Millard. Civil Code Section 1942.5 states that "if the lessor
|
6 | retaliates against the lessee because of the exercise by the lessee of his rights under this chapter ... and
|
7 | if the lessee is not in default as to the payment of his rent, the lessor may not recover possession of a
|
8 | dwelling in any action or proceeding ... within 180 days after the filing of appropriate documents
|
9 | commencing a judicial proceeding involving the issue of tenantability". The Defendant is, therefore,
|
10 | entitled to a six month window of protection under Civil Code Section 1942.5 from being retaliated
|
11 | against after he prevailed during the unlawful detainer proceeding on February 17, 2004.
|
12 | VII.
|
13 | ARGUMENT
|
14 | MIXED MOTIVE EVICTIONS
|
15 | It is Defendant's primary position that he has satisfactorily established the fact that the Plaintiff
|
16 | was solely motivated to evict the Defendant because of his marijuana use and cultivation. However, if
|
17 | the court is inclined to find that the Plaintiff was only "partially" motivated to evict the Defendant
|
18 | because of his marijuana use and cultivation, then the court must still rule in favor of the Defendant.
|
19 | An improper motive, although accompanied by a proper motive still bars the Plaintiff from evicting
|
20 | the Defendant. ADVISORY. The law in this area is unsettled. See California Eviction Defense
|
21 | Manual 2d Ed., CEB §16.22
|
22 | VIII.
|
23 | ARGUMENT
|
24 | FOUR CORNERS OF COMPLAINT/NOTICE (NO NEPHEW/FEAR)
|
25 | The Defendant was served by the Plaintiff with a Sixty Day Notice to Terminate Tenancy on
|
26 | March 11, 2004. The notice does not state a cause. On May 17, 2004 an Unlawful Detainer was
|
27 | filed by the landlord against the Defendant pursuant to the said sixty day notice. The Plaintiff cannot
|
28 | now argue that there is cause for the termination of tenancy. As summarized in the California
|
|
|
|

copyright © 2003-2015 J. Craig Canada aka palmspringsbum.
Commercial use prohibited without consent. All rights reserved.