Eshagian v. Cepeda
B340941
Cal. Ct. App.Jun 26, 2025Background:
- Joseph Eshagian (landlord) leased a Van Nuys residential unit to Manuel Cepeda (tenant); the lease required $1,000/month rent.
- Eshagian served Cepeda with a three-day notice to pay $8,000 in arrears or quit, but the notice lacked critical statutory information.
- Cepeda's answer was stricken as a sanction for discovery violations, leading to entry of default and a possession-only unlawful detainer judgment (no damages were yet adjudicated).
- Cepeda's motion to vacate the judgment for noncompliance with statutory notice requirements was denied; he appealed.
- The appellate division ruled the possession-only judgment was appealable and reversed on the merits, finding the three-day notice deficient; the case was then transferred to this appellate court to resolve whether such a judgment is appealable.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is a possession-only judgment appealable while damages remain? | Yes, it's a final judgment on possession. | No, it's interlocutory as damages are unresolved. | No, possession-only judgment is not appealable if damages remain. |
| Adequacy of statutory 3-day notice under § 1161(2) | Notice met requirements. | Notice was defective on date, address, cure demand. | Notice was invalid; failed statutory requirements. |
| Remedy for defaulted tenant challenging possession-only judg. | Appeal is only recourse. | Writ of mandate is appropriate. | Writ of mandate is the proper remedy; appeal dismissed. |
| Should the court treat this appeal as a writ petition? | Yes, to avoid procedural unfairness. | Unclear or not argued. | Yes, treated as a writ due to uncertainty and merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Superior Motels, Inc. v. Rinn Motor Hotels, Inc., 195 Cal.App.3d 1032 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987) (unlawful detainer case; possession-only judgments treated as interlocutory)
- Dana Point Safe Harbor Collective v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2010) (final judgment rule for appealability)
- Siry Investment, L.P. v. Farkhondehpour, 13 Cal.5th 333 (Cal. 2022) (limits on defaulted party's participation and ability to challenge merits)
- Stancil v. Superior Court, 11 Cal.5th 381 (Cal. 2021) (strict compliance with statutory notice requirements in unlawful detainer)