510PacificAve v. Weiss CA2/4, B304369

Background

Tenant Amy Weiss leased a Venice unit in 2013; building is subject to the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance (LARSO).
Lease paragraph 6 allowed owner to charge additional rent for unauthorized occupants (specified $100 or 25% or amount allowed under rent control); paragraph 15 allowed unilateral changes to lease terms after initial term with 30 days’ notice; paragraph 23 originally allowed prevailing party to recover reasonable attorney fees.
Owner served a notice (Jan 2017) replacing paragraph 23 with a new provision capping recoverable attorneys’ fees at $500 (no jury-waiver). In Feb 2018 Owner served notice alleging an unauthorized occupant and sought a 25% rent increase; Owner then filed this declaratory relief action seeking a declaration the lease-authorized increase is enforceable.
Trial (bench) on stipulated facts and exhibits produced a decision holding paragraph 6 enforceable only to the extent consistent with LARSO §151.06(G) (monetary and 30-consecutive-day limits). Weiss later moved for statutory treble damages under LARSO §151.10.A and for fees; the court denied statutory damages as unpled and untimely, and found the $500 fee cap enforceable, awarding Weiss $500 in fees.
Weiss appealed, arguing the court erred by denying §151.10.A damages, by enforcing the $500 fee cap (arguing illegality, public policy, unconscionability, penalty, and violation of Civ. Code §1940.2), and by denying her new-trial motion for insufficient evidence. The Court of Appeal affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Owner)	Defendant's Argument (Weiss)	Held
1) Can Weiss obtain LARSO §151.10.A statutory damages via a post-trial motion in this declaratory action?	Tenant waived/failed to plead statutory damages; statute requires tenant to sue for damages so landlord can defend at trial.	The statute entitles her to treble damages because Owner demanded unlawful rent; post-trial motion is sufficient because the formula is mechanical and evidence already in record.	Denied — tenant must plead/try statutory-damage claim; post-trial motion was too late because factual issues remained and Owner had no opportunity to defend.
2) Is Owner’s unilateral amendment capping fees at $500 enforceable?	Amendment valid under lease ¶15 and Civil Code §827; cap applies bilaterally and was properly noticed.	Amendment is illegal/unenforceable (violates Civ. Code §1940.2, LARSO public policy, covenant of good faith, is a penalty/forfeiture, and is unconscionable).	Enforced — amendment valid; Weiss limited to $500.
3) Did amendment violate Civ. Code §1940.2 (harassment/pretext eviction)?	Amendment and subsequent litigation are lawful exercises of rights and do not fall within the statute’s enumerated unlawful acts.	The amendment was part of a menacing scheme (course of conduct) to force Weiss out and thus violates §1940.2.	Denied — the amendment alone is not force/threat/menacing conduct within §1940.2; litigation activity does not establish the statute’s listed wrongful acts here.
4) Does the amendment violate public policy under LARSO or the covenant of good faith, or constitute an unlawful penalty/unconscionable term?	LARSO does not bar fee caps; amendment was bilateral, noticed, and consistent with landlord’s statutory right to change month‑to‑month terms.	Fee cap subverts LARSO’s anti‑pretext‑eviction policy, impairs accrued rights, causes forfeiture of fees, and is unconscionable.	Denied — Boston and Cobb are distinguishable; fee cap is bilateral and lawful under state law; no forfeiture because the American rule governs fees absent contract/statute; not unconscionable.
5) Was a new trial required because the record was insufficient to support enforcement of the amendment?	Parties stipulated to the record and authenticity; Weiss had opportunity to present evidence on the fee issue during the fee motion.	Record was undeveloped and insufficient; authentication issues existed.	Denied — Weiss waived those arguments by failing to present evidence earlier; court found submitted record sufficient.

Key Cases Cited

Trope v. Katz, 11 Cal.4th 274 (Cal. 1995) (explains the American rule that parties ordinarily pay their own attorney fees absent statute or contract)
Lewis & Queen v. N.M. Ball Sons, 48 Cal.2d 141 (Cal. 1957) (discusses timing for raising illegality defenses)
Fomco, Inc. v. Joe Maggio, Inc., 55 Cal.2d 162 (Cal. 1961) (denial of new trial where illegality first asserted post‑judgment may be unwarranted)
Boston LLC v. Juarez, 245 Cal.App.4th 75 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (lease forfeiture/one‑sided termination clauses may be invalid where they enable pretext evictions)
Cobb v. Ironwood Country Club, 233 Cal.App.4th 960 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (covenant of good faith limits retroactive impairment of accrued rights by unilateral amendments)
Ebbert v. Mercantile Trust Co. of California, 213 Cal. 496 (Cal. 1931) (discusses forfeiture/penalty principles)