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.
|