palmspringsbum

Unlawful Detainer

Post Trial Brief, 07 Jul 04, page 7

click to see original unlawful detainer 07 Jul 04, post trial brief - page 7
Image of Patriot and Cannabis Leaf
Google

1   remove defendant from the property.  She believed that she could do so on an expedited basis

2
    using the 3-day notice.  The Court ruling proved her wrong.  She simply acted in accordance with
3
    landlord-tenant law and served the requisite 60-day notice.
4

5        There ws suggestion at trial that defendant will raise a defense under California Civil
 
6   Code, Section 1942.5.  The nCourt must note that, while defendants Answer makes mention of the

7   filing of a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), he does not

8
    plead a defense based on retaliation under CC 1942.5.  An affirmative defense must nb3e plead
9
    with particularity and is nwaved if notn son splead. n Evid Code §§ 500, 550.
10
         Notwithstanding the foregoing, defendant nhas failed to prove retaliation by Millard.  The
11
    evidence presented at trial fails to prove that Millard was aware of the claim to the DFEH prior to
12  

13  filing the unlawful detainer action.  The claim was filed on April 22, 2004.  Millard testified that

14  she did not receive notice of the action until sometime after May 11, 2004 due to the fact that the

15  DFEH mailed it to a post office box which was no longer in use.

16
         When asked about having received the notice from the DFEH denying defendants claim,
17
    Millard testified that she received it at the property address.  This proves nothing as Millard's
18

19  counsel was required to file with the response to the claim a notice of address.  By the time the

20  denial of claim was sent, the DFEH had the correct address on file.

21       The defendant offered no evidence in the form of testimony by a representative of the

22
    DFEH, or by a writing of any kind to prove that Millard had, in fact, received notice of the claim
23
    prior to May 17, 2004.  The defendant has the burden of proving his defense and of producing
24

25  evidence of the proscribed retaliation.  Evid. Code §§ 500, 500; Western land Office, inc. v.

26  Cervantes (1985) 175 Cal. App.3d 724.

copyright © 2003-2008 J. Craig Canada aka palmspringsbum
Commercial use prohibited without consent. All rights reserved.