The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, granted summary adjudication to defendant landlord on plaintiff tenant’s malicious prosecution claim. A jury found the landlord liable for violating two rent control ordinances, but found against the tenant on his breach of contract claim. The trial court denied the tenant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the breach of contract claim. Both parties appealed.
California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. has the Best Corporate Lawyers in California
Overview
The court held that summary adjudication was properly granted on the tenant’s malicious prosecution claim because the landlord acted on the advice of counsel when it sought a rent increase to $ 4,295 under California’s Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, Civ. Code, § 1954.50, et seq., even though the lease limited an increase when the unit was sublet to $ 2,000. The landlord disclosed all facts required under the advice-of-counsel defense and did not have to point out the lease term or particular provisions of the Costa-Hawkins Act. The court also held that the litigation privilege in Civ. Code, § 47, subd. (b), barred the claim for wrongful eviction under the rent control ordinance to the extent it was based on either the unlawful detainer action or the three-day notice to quit. On a claim for unlawful rent demands, however, an unlitigated factual issue was central to whether the litigation privilege applied, specifically, whether litigation was contemplated in good faith and under serious consideration at the time the notice was sent. On the breach of contract verdict, the tenant waived an argument that a jury instruction and special verdict on conditions precedent were improper.
Outcome
The court affirmed the summary adjudication of the malicious prosecution claim, reversed the judgment on the claim for wrongful eviction and directed that judgment be entered for the landlord on that claim, reversed the judgment on the claim for unlawful rent demands with directions for retrial, affirmed the breach of contract verdict, and reversed an award of attorney fees to the tenant.