In Garcia v. Myllyla, 40 Cal. App. 5th 990 (2019), nine (9) tenants prevailed in a jury trial against their landlord for various claims, including…
The Concord Rent Ordinance’s rent control protections (“Concord Rent Control”) protect tenants by limiting rent increases to reasonable amounts per year. For units covered by…
Under the Concord Rent Ordinance, Concord tenants are under the constant threat of eviction so their landlord can remove the property from the residential rental…
Under the Concord Rent Ordinance, landlords are permitted to terminate a tenancy to perform an owner move-in eviction or a relative move-in eviction, which requires…
The San Francisco Rent Ordinance requires landlords to pay San Francisco tenants interest on their security deposits. San Francisco Administrative Code § 49.2. This law…
California tenants protected under the California Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (“California Rent Control”) gain critical just cause for eviction protections and rent limitation provisions,…
California tenants may keep animals such as dogs, cats, rabbits, and guinea pigs as pets. These animals enhance their owner’s moods, provide companionship, encourage movement,…
With the impacts of California’s housing crisis becoming particularly acute in Palo Alto in recent years, the City of Palo Alto passed the Palo Alto…
When coupled with the first months’ rent, high security deposits are a significant barrier for many tenants securing housing. The cost of moving into a…
After separating from employment, a California worker may desire to become employed elsewhere or, alternatively, open a business, performing the same or similar work. However, their former…
In Garcia v. Myllyla, 40 Cal. App. 5th 990 (2019), nine (9) tenants prevailed in a jury trial against their landlord for various claims, including breach of the warranty of habitability, negligence, premises liability, nuisance, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. They filed suit based on suffering personal injury, property damage, and severe emotional distress stemming from substandard living conditions in duplex the landlord unlawfully divided into twelve (12) separate units. The substandard living conditions were extreme, and included a backlog of human waste in the back yard, a cockroach infestation, a bed bug infestation, a rodent infestation, mold, power outages, water shutoffs, unlawful electrical work, dilapidated stairwells, and pervasive wood rot. Additionally, the twelve (12) units shared only two (2) perpetually unclean community restrooms. Conditions were so dire that the tenants were accustomed to going months without hot water. Stunningly, the landlord’s daughter sold the tenants buckets of warm water rather than repair the defect. Needless to say, the tenants were justified in filing suit against their landlord.
Following a trial, the jury awarded the tenants damages, including a punitive damages award of $95,000.00 to each tenant. The landlord challenged the punitive damages award for lack of sufficient evidence supporting the award, and as excessive.
In affirming the jury verdict, the Court of Appeal found substantial evidence of the landlord’s fraud supported the punitive damage award. By stating that the tenants were family members, the landlord lied to the City to avoid inspection and operated the rental business unlawfully. The landlord took this wretched course of action to avoid inspection as the landlord likely did not want to make the premises code compliant. In the end, the court concluded the fraud in dealing with Los Angeles regulators directly enabled the violations supporting the Plaintiffs’ injuries. Therefore, sufficient evidence of fraud to support a punitive damages award existed and the court found that the award was not excessive.