It was a clear case of retaliatory eviction. After making repeated complaints to the CRIC House 'steering committee' about overrunning septic systems close to the watershed, neglectful treatment of animals, harassment of adults and children, my client was served with an eviction notice.
After she reported conditions to the Sonoma County code enforcement department - in fact, the day after - she was served with another eviction notice, and when that expired, she was served with an unlawful detainer lawsuit.
Under Civil Code 1942.5, if the landlord retaliates against a tenant because s/he has exercised rights or complained to a government agency, the landlord is blocked from taking any eviction actions for six months of:
- complaining to the landlord about tenantability
- complaining to the appropriate government agency
- inspection or issuance of citation
- plus a few others.
What all that means is that you can't evict someone for complaining about conditions. And complaints to appropriate government agencies are especially likely to give rise to a claim of retailiation.
That's what happened in this case - the commune people even posted a sign, "Hope you're happy!" Pretty good sign of retaliation.
Facing the prospect of a loss in court, the eviction being blocked for six months, and attorneys fees, the landlord's attorney urged the owner of the property to settle.
They did, paying several thousand dollars in exchange for my client to move out, while the case is converted to a normal civil case. We will bring a cross-complaint for damages for habitability, rent abatement, harassment and other causes of action.
So far, so good. The client has money to relocate -- a case is proceeding.
