Richard Fox Emmons, Jr. v. Tobias Jesso, Jr.

Los Angeles, California commercial litigation lawyers represented the parties in a landlord and tenant dispute.



n April2015, tenant entered into a written lease agreement for the lower level of 2500 Lake View Avenue for $1,000 per month. In 2016, landlord purchased the property.



In March 2018, landlord received an order from the city saying the unit he was renting to tenant was illegal. Landlord believed the order resulted from a complaint filed by tenant or tenant's lawyer. Landlord went to the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety (LADBS) to correct the mistake, bringingpaperwork, which the LADBS reviewed with him. After landlord provided the building permit, certificate of occupancy and other necessary paperwork, LADBS rescinded the order on June6, 2018. However, based on the order, tenant refused to move out and stopped paying rent.



In May 2018, landlord received a notice from LAHD indicating the property was subject to the rent stabilization ordinance (RSO). LAHD had reviewed a complaint regarding failure to post "RSO Notice.” Tenant received a courtesy copy. The letter also noted LADBS had issued a "Substandard Order and Notice of Fee,” effective April30, 2018. The violations cited in the order included illegal occupancy of the lower unit. The letter provided a procedure the land

tenant to comply with a government order. Tenant understood the letter relieved him from paying rent, so he declined to pay rent. However, documents entered into evidence at trial, including City of Los Angeles Statements of Registration of Rental Units for 2500 Lake View Avenue, which were issued pursuant to the RSO, reflected registration payments made by landlord from 2016–2020 for two rental units in the duplex located at 2500 Lake View Avenue.



On February15, 2019, landlord sent tenant a letter asking tenant to vacate the property within 60 days. Tenant failed to vacate. On April10, 2019, landlord presented tenant with a three-day notice to pay rent or quit. Tenant failed to pay rent or quit the premises within three days of that notice. On April19, 2019, landlord sent tenant another three-day notice to pay rent or quit. Tenant again refused to comply. Tenant lodged another complaint with the LAHD Code Enforcement Division on April23, 2019, which was closed immediately.



On May8, 2019, LAHD served a notice and order to comply to landlord, citing unapproved units, illegal construction, and unapproved use or occupancy. On June13, 2019, the compliance date, the complaint was closed with no violations resolved.



On May22, 2019, landlord served tenant with a "Declaration of Intent to Evict in Order to Comply with aGovernment Agency'sOrder.” On June12, 2019, landlord filed a "Relocation Services OR Demolition Monitoring Services Application.” Landlord checked as the reason for his application, "Eviction for compliance with a government agency order.”



On July2, 2019, landlord sent his first check in the amount of $21,200 to tenant's lawyer for relocation expenses. Tenant's lawyer insisted he never received it. Landlord was not permitted to evict tenant based on "no relocation payment being cashed.” Landlord had to refile for eviction.

The evidence supported the jury’s verdict in favor of landlord for past rent withheld by tenant on the theories advanced by tenant at trial. For this reason, tenant’s JNOV motion was properly denied.



Affirmed