Elmassian v. Flores
| Citation | 69 Cal.App.5th Supp. 1,284 Cal.Rptr.3d 401 |
| Decision Date | 11 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. BV 033271,BV 033271 |
| Parties | Nora ELMASSIAN, Plaintiff and Respondent v. Noemi FLORES, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | United States Superior Court (California) |
Taylor Campion and Jennafer Dorfman Wagner, Family Violence Appellate Project; Eric. M. Post, Van Nuys, and Danny Sandoval, BASTA, Inc.; and Craig E. Stewart, Amos J. B. Espeland, San Francisco, and Margaret A. Maloy, San Diego, Jones Day, for Defendant and Appellant Noemi Flores.
Lane M. Nussbaum, Glendale, and Wayne Abb, Nussbaum APC, for Plaintiff and Respondent Nora Elmassian.
In this matter of first impression, we construe the affirmative defense in unlawful detainer evictions that "a landlord shall not terminate a tenancy ... based upon an act or acts against a tenant ... that constitute domestic violence" ( Code of Civ. Proc., § 1161.3, subd. (a) ).1 We hold:
(1) A tenant can assert the defense to being evicted based upon domestic violence causing a nuisance on rented property even if non-domestic violence grounds are also asserted in the action. The language of the statute and its legislative history indicate that, although a tenant can be evicted for non-domestic violence grounds even when the tenant is a victim of domestic violence, including due to creating a nuisance for reasons other than domestic violence and/or failing to pay rent, in instances where the action is based on both domestic violence and non-domestic violence grounds, a tenant must be allowed to maintain the section 1161.3 defense as to the domestic violence grounds.
(2) The requisite documentation needed to support the defense can consist of a report prepared by the police narrating a domestic violence incident based solely on a tenant's statements which do not name the perpetrator of the violence, do not indicate the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator, and only document one of multiple instances of violence relied on by the landlord to evict the tenant. The statute provides the domestic violence defense must be documented by "[a] copy of a written report, written within the last 180 days, by a peace officer ... stating that the tenant ... has filed a report alleging that [the tenant] is a victim of domestic violence ...." ( § 1161.3, subd. (a)(1)(B) ), and the language used and the statute's legislative history do not evince a requirement that further information be provided.
The trial court granted a directed verdict as to the defense by defendant and appellant Noemi Flores that plaintiff and respondent Nora Elmassian terminated the tenancy and brought an unlawful detainer action based upon acts of domestic violence committed in the apartment complex where defendant lived. The jury was thus not allowed to consider whether defendant should prevail on her defense as to domestic violence grounds in the action, and determined plaintiff proved defendant committed a nuisance on the property. The court entered judgment in plaintiff's favor, and defendant appealed.
We conclude the court erred in granting a directed verdict regarding the defense. There was evidence presented of defendant having committed a nuisance based upon domestic violence and non-domestic violence acts, and we cannot tell from the jury's verdict on which grounds the jury rested its decision. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the directed verdict and without considering the credibility of the witnesses, as we are required to do on appellate review, we find there was substantial evidence supporting the domestic violence defense. We thus reverse the judgment.
Plaintiff filed the complaint on May 16, 2019,2 alleging defendant and her husband William Flores (Will)3 failed to comply with a three-day notice to quit their apartment unit, served on May 10. The notice provided the eviction was based on maintaining, permitting, or committing a nuisance, stating,
Defendant answered the complaint, generally denying plaintiff's allegations, and asserting several defenses. On the day trial started, during a case management conference, the court determined defendant would be asserting the defenses that the case was brought in retaliation to defendant complaining about her unit's state of disrepair (see Civ. Code, § 1942.5 ), and because the action was based upon acts of domestic violence.
Christine Singleton, who lived directly across defendant's apartment in a four-unit complex in the Boyle Heights area of Los Angeles, was the only witness called by plaintiff to prove the nuisance described in the three-day notice. Singleton testified she moved into her apartment in 2017, and defendant, along with her teenage son, two young children, and Will resided in the nearby apartment.
Each unit had a single parking spot assigned to it, and Singleton claimed that, starting in 2018, Defendant and Will would also sometimes park without permission in other tenants’ spots. Both Will and defendant would park in her spot or block in her car, and she repeatedly had to ask them to move their vehicles. On one occasion, her car was vandalized, but she did not know who had caused the damage. Defendant's boyfriend, Oscar Quesada (Oscar), started coming to the location in January, one month after Will moved out, and Oscar would sometimes also park in Singleton's spot.
Singleton maintained Will had a white van, and she would often see On five or six occasions, Singleton saw the people who had been in the van going in and out of defendant's apartment unit. One time, Singleton saw "someone drive up to the driveway, knock on the window, and exchange ... money for a bag," leading her to suspect someone in defendant's apartment unit had sold drugs to the person. When Will left the location he took his van, but Singleton continued to see persons associated with defendant in the apartment complex area who she suspected were "drug addicts."
As to the threats, harassment and intimidation indicated in the eviction notice, Singleton testified both Will and defendant had many times given her "dirty looks" and she once had "an altercation" with defendant regarding the parking situation. Oscar had the tattoo "BHR" on the back of his head, and Singleton believed he was a member of the Big Hazard street gang which frequented the neighborhood. The gang was known for committing violent crimes, and Singleton was very frightened by Oscar and was reluctant to confront him when he would park in her spot.
Singleton testified on direct examination to a day where defendant and Oscar "drove their car really close to [her]" and "there were stares and dirty looks, like they were waiting to jump [her]." She explained that Singleton also testified she was afraid of defendant and defendant's guests, and because she had seen "so many fights outside ... with [defendant] and others fighting with other people in the driveway." Singleton additionally testified on direct that on April 26 and April 29, she sent text messages to Al Keyser, one of the managers of the property, telling him "[defendant] is back with her abuser," and complaining Oscar was parking in the driveway blocking her from parking in her spot.
On cross-examination, in addition to attempting to discredit Singleton's testimony about her parking space and car being blocked and drug activity occurring in the apartment complex, defense counsel elicited testimony to show the reason Singleton felt threatened, harassed, and intimidated was due to having witnessed multiple incidents of domestic violence involving defendant. Singleton testified things "got bad" in the months leading to the three-day notice being given to defendant on May 10. She stated she believed Oscar was a violent person, "based on the way he abuses [defendant]." Defendant and Oscar broke off their relationship, but Oscar would return to the complex. Singleton could "overhear the violence that goes on" because her door was five feet away from defendant's door. There were holes that had been punched or kicked into the wall next to defendant's door caused by "Oscar and [defendant] when they get in a scuffle."
Defense counsel asked Singleton about text messages she sent to Keyser after April 29. The texts were sent in the five weeks following service of the three-day notice on May 10, but Singleton testified she was "really bad with dates," and as noted in the Discussion portion of the opinion, it was unclear...
To continue reading
Request your trial