S. P. Growers Association v. Rodriguez
| Decision Date | 27 January 1976 |
| Citation | 54 Cal.App.3d 852,126 Cal.Rptr. 842 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | S. P. GROWERS ASSOCIATION, etc., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Rufino RODRIGUEZ, etc., et al., Defendants and Appellants, Civ. 47363. |
Legal Aid Association of Ventura County by Stephen A. Harvey, Ventura, for defendants ant appellants.
Hathaway, Clabaugh, Perrett & Webster by Paul D. Powers, Ventura, for plaintiff and respondent.
Plaintiff (Respondent) brought an unlawful detainer action in the Municipal Court (Ventura County). That Court entered judgment in favor of respondent. Defendants appealed to the Superior Court, Appellate Department, Ventura County, which affirmed the judgment. Pursuant to rule 63(a), California Rules of Court, the Appellate Department certified that the transfer of the matter to this court appeared necessary to settle important questions of law. We accepted the certification and granted a hearing. All parties agree that sole issues are correctly set forth in the Memorandum of Opinion written for the Superior Court, Appellate Department, Ventura County, by the Honorable Robert R. Willard, Presiding Judge thereof. In our view the well written opinion clearly and correctly defines the issue and applies the law. We therefore set forth that opinion in toto and adopt it as that of this court.
Respondent is a labor contractor who rents housing to its employees on a month-to-month basis. Appellant, as such a tenant, was given adequate notice of termination of his tenancy. When he refused to vacate, respondent brought an unlawful detainer action in the municipal court. In that action the trial court refused do receive evidence offered on two affirmative defenses. These defenses were that the tenancies had been terminated in retaliation for two things: (1) that appellant was on strike against respondent, and (2) that appellant was a plaintiff in a United States District Court action against respondent alleging violation of the Farm Labor Contractors Registration Act. (7 U.S.C. § 2041 et seq.)
Appellants have conceded that but for the affirmative defenses plaintiff would be entitled to judgment. The sole issues are whether the affirmative defenses of retaliation for striking and for filing the U.S. District Court lawsuit are cognizable in this action for unlawful detainer.
1 (Green v. Superior Court [1974] 10 Cal.3d 616, 632, 111 Cal.Rptr. 704, 715, 517 P.2d 1168, 1179.)
As indicated in the Green decision, the availability of a defense is not determined by whether the defense is legal or equitable, but rather by whether it goes to the right of possession, as contrasted to some other issue arising out of the subject matter.
In this case, the specific issues are whether the alleged causes for the eviction (retaliation for striking and suing) bar what otherwise would be landlord's right to possession.
At least four California decisions require consideration.
In Abstract Inv. Co. v. Hutchison (1962) 204 Cal.App.2d 242, 22 Cal.Rptr. 309, it was determined that retaliatory eviction because of race would constitute state action in violation of the United States Constitution, and therefore should have been considered by the trial court as a defense to a claim of right to possession in an unlawful detainer action.
In Schweiger v. Superior Court (1970) 3 Cal.3d 507, 90 Cal.Rptr. 729, 476 P.2d 97 the Supreme Court held that indirect termination of tenancy in retaliation for the exercise by the tenant of statutory rights under Civil Code section 1942 to make necessary repairs at the landlord's expense, foreclosed the landlord's right to possession.
Green v. Superior Court (1974) 10 Cal.3d 616, 111 Cal.Rptr. 704, 517 P.2d 1168 held that failure to maintain the premises in habitable condition is a defense to unlawful detainer.
Union Oil Co. v. Chandler (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 716, 84 Cal.Rptr. 756 stands for the proposition that alleged violation by the landlord of anti-trust laws relating to pricing of products sold from the leased premises does not bar his right to possession and is not a defense that can be considered in an action for unlawful detainer.
From these cases we learn that retaliatory eviction will not be enforced by unlawful detainer judgments if the retaliation is for exercise of a constitutional right or for exercise of a statutory right created for the protection of tenants, but that unlawful detainer is not barred by motives which do not relate to constitutional rights or statutory rights of tenants.
As indicated in respondent's brief, there is no constitutionally protected right to strike. (City of L. A. v. L. A. Bldg. & Const. Trades Counsel [1949] 94 Cal.App.2d 36, 210 P.2d 305; Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Bass (D.C.Ky.1971) 328 F.Supp. 732.)
There is no allegation that the retaliation was for the exercise of either speech or assembly. The organizing unit to which the defendant allegedly belonged had been formed for over a year, and negotiations had gone on between that bargaining unit and the plaintiff.
In addition, defendant signed a conditional license, attached as exhibit 'A' to the complaint. At paragraph 3 of that document the defendant agreed that upon the termination of his employment, for any reason, or upon a work stoppage, his right to occupy the premises would terminate and that he would forthwith vacate the premises. This was a condition of his tenancy. The existence of this clause did not curtail the defendant's ability to strike since not all persons employed through S.P. Growers lived in company housing. The housing was not supplied as a condition of employment but as a convenience to employees.
Defendant also alleges that the bringing of the unlawful detainer action was in retaliation for his prosecution of an action under the Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act, as amended. That affirmative defense reads:
The text of the pertinent section (7 U.S.C.A. § 2050b) reads as follows:
'(a) No person shall intimidate, threaten, restrain, coerce, blacklist, discharge, or in any manner discriminate against any migrant worker because such worker has, with just cause, filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this chapter or has testified or is about to testify in any such proceedings or because of the exercise, with just cause, by such worker on behalf of himself or others of any right or protection afforded by this chapter.
The federal court action is not one which relates directly to the issue of possession and would not, if it were established, result in defendant's retention of the premises. This affirmative defense is analogous to the one raised in Union Oil Co. v. Chandler (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 716, 84 Cal.Rptr. 756. In that case the defendant alleged that the eviction was in retaliation for his refusal to participate in price fixing violations with the plaintiff. He offered to prove that the eviction was a violation of federal statutes relating to antitrust laws and the Cartwright Act. The court refused to allow him to prove this defense stating that,
'Absent any constitutional proscriptions, we see no basis for extending the exception to the general rule prohibiting affirmative defenses in an unlawful detainer action to include defenses such as those alleged here which are extrinsic to the facts upon which the right to terminate rests.' (Union Oil Co. v. Chandler, supra, at 726, 84 Cal.Rptr. at 763.)
The court further acknowledged that the refusal to allow the raising of this affirmative...
To continue reading
Request your trial