one tenants dog that was on a leash but also was a aggressive dog and has two strikes with the pound attacked another tenant dog, the other tenants dog that got attack didn't get hurt but the tenant did by the other dog and has a $1300 medical bil...
No. Pursuant to California Civil Code section 1950.5, a landlord may only use a tenant's security deposit for four purposes:
1) For unpaid rent;
2) For cleaning the rental unit when the tenant moves out (but only to make the unit as clean as it was when the tenant first moved in);
3) For repair of damages, other than normal wear and tear, caused by the tenant or the tenant's guests; and
4) If the lease or rental agreement allows it, for the cost of restoring or replacing furniture, furnishings, or other items of personal property other than because of normal wear and tear.See question
My friend and I formed a general partnership opening a barber shop. We are 50/50 share and don't have partnership agreement. My friend hired her friend and other people come to the shop to work without my consent. She will do it again. Can she ...
Generally speaking, yes. Except as expressly statedin a written partnership agreement, each general partner has the same right and authority to run the business. General partners share in the profits and in the losses.See question
The 60 days are just about over. I now received a letter from a lawyer posted on door. If you were to speculate, is that a follow up to the original 60 days or a new 60 day notice? Appreciate any input. Thanks.
You should not rely on anyone's speculation regarding your important tights and obligations. You will need your own lawyer to review the initial 60 day notice as well as the letter which was just posted on your door. Even so, the most reliable answer regarding whether the letter constitutes a new 60 day notice would be the lawyer who wrote the letter that was posted on your door. Generally speaking, the landlord can terminate a month to month tenancy upon giving 60 days written notice, and can evict a tenant from an illegal rental dwelling (just cannot collect unpaid rent for the illegal dwelling). You would not be entitled to relocation assistance unless the rental dwelling was subject to the Los Angeles Rent Stablization Ordinance.See question
If so, will I be able to file an Motion of Dismissal with Prejudice before I get the actual serve files? Thank you.
Yes, however, only the court files from unlimited jurisdiction civil cases pending at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse can be downloaded from the court's website (for a fee). Images of court documents from other courthouses in Los Angeles and limited jurisdiction civil cases are not available online. Generally speaking, those documents (such as the Summons and Complaint) are the documents that are initially served upon a defendant. You can file a response (such as an Answer) and pay the first appearance filing fee to the court before you are actually served but doing so waives your right to contest personal jurisdiction. No, there is no such thing as a motion of dismissal with prejudice in state court. You might be able to file a Demurrer to Complaint in response (even before you are actually served with the Summons and Complaint), but the current law in California requires that you meet and confer with the plaintiff's counsel before you can file your Demurrer.
I read somewhere that when a state is sued, it has to be sued in federal court. I want to know how true this is. Can a state ever be sued in state court under any circumstances?
Yes, certainly. However, if you want to sue a government agency (such as the State of California), you must first file a claim with the agency before you can file a lawsuit. See California Government Code sections 945-949.See question
I'm being threatened with a frivolous breach-of-contract lawsuit from someone who, in doing LA court records searches, I see has filed 18+ lawsuits against others in recent years. Mostly small claims & civil harassment. They use variations of th...
Just because the plaintiff has filed 18+ lawsuits does not necessarily mean the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant. California Code of Civil Procedure § 391(b) describes four alternative definitions of "vexatious litigant." Plaintiff's litigation conduct must fit within one of these definitions; i.e., the court may not "mix and match" portions of each definition. (See Holcomb v. United States Bank Nat'l Ass'n (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1501.)
A “vexatious litigant” is an individual who has “commenced, prosecuted, or maintained” at least five non-small claims court litigations, in propria persona, where there has been a final determination adverse to the person, or which actions have been pending without justification for two years. (CCP section 391(b)(1).)
A vexatious litigant is also a person who repeatedly relitigates or attempts to relitigate the same issue or controversy against the same defendant, repeatedly files unmeritorious motions or has previously been declared to be a vexatious litigant by any state or federal court of record in any action or proceeding based upon the same or substantial similar facts, transaction, or occurrence.” (CCP section 391(b)(2), (3), (4).)
The vexatious litigant procedure is that the defendant makes a noticed motion that the plaintiff be required to furnish security. The motion may be made at any time before entry of final judgment. (CCP section 391.1.) If it is made prior to trial, litigation is stayed and the moving defendant need not plead until 10 days after the motion has been denied, or, if the motion is granted, until 10 days after the required security has been furnished and the defendant has been given written notice of it. The motion must be supported by a showing that (a) the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant, and (b) there is no reasonable probability that he will prevail in the litigation against the moving defendant. (CCP section 391.1.)
At the hearing, the court shall consider such evidence, written or oral, by witnesses or affidavit, as may be material to the ground of the motion. (CCP section 391.2.) “If, after hearing the evidence upon the motion, the court determines that the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant and that there is no reasonable probability that the plaintiff will prevail in the litigation against the moving defendant, the court shall order the plaintiff to furnish, for the benefit of the moving defendant, security in such amount and within such time as the court shall fix.” (CCP section 391.3.) The defendant seeking such an order also has the burden of proof. (Muller v. Tanner (1969) 2 Cal.App.3d 445, 464.)
Malicious prosecution is filed as a civil case, not a criminal case so the DA's office would not be involved. n California, to establish a cause of action for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must prove that the underlying action was (1) terminated in the plaintiff's favor, (2) prosecuted without probable cause, and (3) initiated with malice. (Zamos v. Stroud (2004) 32 Cal.4th 958, 966, 973.) In other words, you must first win the case before you can later file a malicious prosection lawsuit. A malicious prosecution action can be maintained where only one of several claims in the prior action lacked probable cause. (Crowley v. Katleman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 666, 679 — probable cause must support each cause of action; Citi-Wide Preferred Couriers, Inc. v. Golden Eagle Ins. Corp. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 906, 913–915 —although some small amount of money was owed, most of the amount claimed in a prior action lacked probable cause.)See question
The answers to a Request for Admissions was given after the cutoff date. What happens now? Thank you.
If you have already received responses to the request for admissions, you can no longer file a motion to deem admitted (even though you received the responses late). See California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2033.280 and 2033.290.See question
As a consignor, I never received a summons to court but my name is on the summons as a defendant. My address has never changed and is actually listed on the contract. Am I still obligated to respond? Can I use this as a defense and respond ...
No Improper service must be raised in a motion to quash service of summons, not as a defense in an answer to the complaint. Once you file an answer, you waive your right to challege personal jurisdiction. If you have not been served with the summons and complaint, you have no obligation to respond. However, if the plaintiff alleges that you were properly served, it is possible that the plaintiff will seek entry of default and a default judgment against you. Therefore, it would be best to answer. Unless there is a written agreement with the primary debtor, the other defendant/debtor is not responsible for answering on your behalf. Moreover, if the other defendant/debtor is representing himself/herself in "pro per" without an attorney, the other defendant/debtor cannot represent you nor file an answer on your behalf (since this would constitute the unauthorized practice of law). Furthermore, as the co-signor, you may have different defenses. You might also have a cross-complaint against the other defendant/debtor (which would be a conflct of interest for an attorney to represent both defendants).See question
I am about to execute an Agent Agreement to refer business to a prepaid credit card services provider (Program Manager). I would bring clients I am advising & working with to develop new products and referring them to various service providers inc...
In California, post-employment non-compete agreements are automatically void as a matter of law, except for a small set of specific situations expressly authorized by statute. California Business and Professions Code section 16600 provides: "Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void."
Likewise, post-employment restrictions in non-solicitation agreements are invalid under Section 16600 of California’s Business and Professions Code, which bans any restriction on the right to pursue a profession, trade or business, unless they fall within the statutory exception for the sale of a business. (Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP (2008) 44 Cal.4th 937.)
Related to these exceptions is the protection of trade secrets. Confidentiality agreements (preventing disclose of trade secrets) are still enforceable. A company can prevent the use of its trade secrets, but it cannot prevent fair competition. In 2009, following the lead of the California Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards v. Arthur Andersen, the Fourth District of the California Court of Appeal held that contracts prohibiting former employees from soliciting customers are not enforceable, unless tied to protecting the employer’s trade secrets. (The Retirement Group v. Galante (2009) 176 Cal. App. 4th 1226.) Generally, a "trade secret" is information that is closely guarded by the company, and cost the company a considerable amount of effort and expense to develop, and is not generally available to the public.
In short, it all comes down to the method and manner the company takes to protect the customer lists and customer information as "trade secrets". Just calling the customer list a trade secret does not make it so. And simply inserting a contractual provision in an employment agreement is not enough to protect the company's valuable information.See question
My neighbor sued me over an easement dispute (unlimited civil - California ) on August 15th 2016. With a case management conference scheduled for December 2016. Then about 10 days later, her attorney sent me a notice of unavaiblilty of counsel fro...
No, it is not. A "notice of unavailability" of counsel is sometimes helpful if any actions taken in bad faith are initiated during the period of unavailability and a party wishes to file a motion for sanctions. However, a “notice of unavailability” by which a litigant purports to bind other parties and the court from taking adverse action during a prescribed time period is actually not a fileable document under the California Rules of Court. (Carl v. Superior Court (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 73, 75.) In short, it is not binding on the court and does not stay the action.See question