Banuelos v. LA Investment CA2/1
219 Cal. App. 4th 323
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Banuelos sues Park Granada owners/managers alleging statutory and common-law retaliation and related harms after rental/tenancy disputes.
- Banuelos I (2008) challenged park’s refusal to approve tenancy under Civ. Code 798.74; summary judgment for defendants affirmed; no duty or tenant-park relationship found.
- Banuelos II (2010) new owner rejected tenancy; Banuelos later claimed May 2010 tenancy; unlawful detainer action ensued with Banuelos prevailing on the merits.
- Banuelos III (Aug. 2011) third amended complaint asserted retaliation, bad faith, and interference with economic advantage; trial court sustained demurrers without leave to amend; judgment against all but a cross-claimant.
- Court reverses as to retaliation claim under Civ. Code 1942.5, holding it is not barred by Civil Code 47(b) litigation privilege; affirms remaining claims; partial publication certified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 1942.5 authorizes a retaliatory eviction claim | Banuelos asserts 1942.5 creates a civil cause of action | Defendants argue privilege conflicts or no remedy | Yes, 1942.5 creates a viable claim not barred by privilege |
| Whether litigation privilege bars 1942.5 claims | 1942.5 should not be barred by privilege given its remedial nature | Privilege precludes ancillary tort claims | No; privilege does not bar 1942.5 claims; statute specific and remedial |
| Whether counts for bad faith, interference with economic advantage, and negligence are viable | Banuelos seeks additional remedies beyond 1942.5 | No cognizable basis under statute or common law | Bad faith and related claims fail; no damages shown; no viable common-law basis |
| Whether 1942.5 claims are applicable to mobile-home park tenants | Statute protects tenants including mobile-home park tenants | Statutory scope limited or not applicable | Yes; 1942.5 applies to mobile-home park tenants and protects rights to be free from retaliatory eviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Schweiger v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.3d 507 (Cal. 1970) (retaliation defense to eviction recognized; public policy underpins protections)
- Aweeka v. Bonds, 20 Cal.App.3d 278 (Cal. App. 1971) (retaliatory eviction recognized; remedies interplay)
- Action Apartment Assn., Inc. v. City of Santa Monica, 41 Cal.4th 1232 (Cal. 2007) (litigation privilege limits; but statute-specific exceptions may prevail)
- Barela v. Superior Court, 30 Cal.3d 244 (Cal. 1981) (remedial nature of statute; liberal construction to suppress mischief)
- Rubin v. Green, 4 Cal.4th 118 (Cal. 1993) (litigation privilege vs unfair competition statute; not controlling here)
- Komarova v. National Credit Acceptance, Inc., 175 Cal.App.4th 324 (Cal. App. 2009) (Rosenthal FDCPA context; limits of privilege where statute forbids certain conduct)
- Feldman v. 1100 Park Lane Associates, 160 Cal.App.4th 1467 (Cal. App. 2008) (illustrates conflicts with privilege when statutory framework differs)
- Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal.App.4th 1169 (Cal. App. 2011) (previous attempt to bar 1942.5 claims under privilege discussed)