Tenant defense documents for California

Directed verdict motion in unlawful detainer (eviction) case in California

A directed verdict motion in an unlawful detainer (eviction) case in California is the topic of this blog post.   A directed verdict motion in California can only be filed in cases involving a jury trial and is authorized by Code of Civil Procedure section 630. The filing of a directed verdict motion in a California eviction case is authorized by Code of Civil Procedure section 1177 which states that, “Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter the provisions of Part II of this Code are applicable to, and constitute the rules of practice in the proceedings mentioned in this Chapter.”

A directed verdict motion is somewhat similar to a motion for nonsuit in that the motion essentially operates as a demurrer to the evidence presented by the opposing party. Either motion will be granted if there is no substantial evidence to support the claim or defense of the party opposing the motion.  But there are some between the two motions including that:

A motion for directed verdict generally lies only after all the parties have completed presentation of evidence in a jury trial. Nonsuit motions are usually made after the plaintiff's evidence is concluded.

Although usually filed by a defendant a motion for directed verdict may also be brought by a plaintiff.

A California motion for directed verdict is used in order to achieve a judgment as a matter of law. The judgment that is requested would be in favor of one (or more) parties on all (or some) of the issues in that particular case. The motion for directed verdict is filed after all parties present their evidence and before the matter goes to the jury. The granting of the motion may dismiss a party or decide some (or all) of the issues before the matter goes to a jury. After entry of any judgment in accordance with a directed verdict, the prevailing party can recover its costs of suit pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1038.

Note that a motion for directed verdict in California is only appropriate when it is clear from the evidence presented, that the party against whom the motion is made, typically a plaintiff or cross-complainant, cannot meet its burden of proof of elements of its claim against the moving party. 

A common in an eviction case would be where the evidence is insufficient to sustain Plaintiff's burden of proof on the issue whether the plaintiff has standing to sue as they do not hold valid title to the property due to an invalid foreclosure, whether the plaintiff can state a valid cause of action for unlawful detainer due to a defective three-day notice, etc. 

A motion for directed verdict may be filed even if a motion for nonsuit was previously denied by the court.

In ruling on a motion for directed verdict, the court determines only whether there is no evidence to support a verdict against the moving party. On a motion for directed verdict, the court's decision will operate as an adjudication on the merits unless otherwise ordered by the court, however the jury must still render a verdict before the decision on the motion for directed verdict can be incorporated in the final judgment.

A California Court of Appeal case has stated that filing a motion for directed verdict is proper when there is no conflict in the evidence, and there is substantial evidence that supports a verdict in favor of the moving party.

Attorneys or parties in California who would like to view a portion of a 14 page sample motion for directed verdict including a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, sample declaration and proposed order sold by the author can use the link shown below.

Sample motion for directed verdict in California eviction

 

Attorneys or parties who would like to view portions of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation sold by the author of this blog post can use the link shown below.

View over 250 sample legal documents for sale

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation.

*Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit http://freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/ for more information.

Follow the author on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/LegalDocsPro

You can view sample legal document packages for sale by going to http://www.legaldocspro.com/downloads.aspx

DISCLAIMER:

Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.

The materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

Nonsuit motion in unlawful detainer (eviction) case in California

A nonsuit motion in an unlawful detainer (eviction) case in California is the topic of this blog post.  A motion for nonsuit is authorized by Code of Civil Procedure section 581c and may be filed in an eviction case in California as Code of Civil Procedure § 1177 states that, “Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter the provisions of Part II of this Code are applicable to, and constitute the rules of practice in the proceedings mentioned in this Chapter.”

A motion for nonsuit can be helpful in the right situations as it allows a defendant to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence offered by a plaintiff at an early stage of the trial while still preserving the right to present their defense if the motion is denied. 

A defendant may not move for nonsuit until after plaintiff has completed their opening statement, or has presented their evidence in a jury trial.

Several California Court of Appeal decisions have held that a motion for nonsuit functions as a demurrer to the evidence offered by plaintiff. 

Code of Civil Procedure § 581c states that,

“(a) Only after, and not before, the plaintiff has completed his or her opening statement, or after the presentation of his or her evidence in a trial by jury, the defendant, without waiving his or her right to offer evidence in the event the motion is not granted, may move for a judgment of nonsuit.

(b) If it appears that the evidence presented, or to be presented, supports the granting of the motion as to some but not all of the issues involved in the action, the court shall grant the motion as to those issues and the action shall proceed as to the issues remaining. Despite the granting of the motion, no final judgment shall be entered prior to the termination of the action, but the final judgment in the action shall, in addition to any matters determined in the trial, award judgment as determined by the motion herein provided for.

(c) If the motion is granted, unless the court in its order for judgment otherwise specifies, the judgment of nonsuit operates as an adjudication upon the merits.

(d) In actions which arise out of an injury to the person or to property, when a motion for judgment of nonsuit was granted on the basis that the defendant was without fault, no other defendant during trial, over plaintiff’s objection, may attempt to attribute fault to or comment on the absence or involvement of the defendant who was granted the motion.”

A motion for nonsuit in a California eviction case could be made on several grounds including that, as a matter of law, the evidence is insufficient to sustain Plaintiff's burden of proof on the issue whether the plaintiff has standing to sue as they do not hold valid title to the property due to an invalid foreclosure, whether the plaintiff can state a valid cause of action for unlawful detainer due to a defective three-day notice, etc.

The trial judge has very limited discretion in ruling on a motion for nonsuit as the court must rule solely on the basis of the evidence offered by plaintiff.  And in ruling on a motion for nonsuit after the opening statement, the court can only consider only the matters stated by plaintiff in the opening statement and any reasonable inferences that may be drawn. It should be stressed that the California Supreme Court ruled over 100 years ago that granting nonsuit after an opening statement is disfavored and should be avoided unless the evidence clearly shows that no case can be made out.

The discretion is very similar in ruling on a motion for nonsuit after plaintiff has presented their case, in that case only the evidence submitted by plaintiff and any reasonable inferences that may be drawn can be considered.

Most motions for nonsuit are made orally and without any prior notice being provided to plaintiff.  Although supporting papers are not generally required, a motion for nonsuit is often based on points and authorities. Thus a written motion may be more effective.  And a nonsuit motion after plaintiff has presented their case may be based on exhibits received in evidence and transcripts of testimony.

Parties considering moving for nonsuit should check the local rules and also contact the clerk of the department where the trial will be held to determine if there are any specific requirements that must be followed.

Any motion for nonsuit should state the precise grounds on which the motion is made, and should clearly indicate the defects in the plaintiff's case clearly and with particularity.

As should be obvious by now, the requirements for a motion for nonsuit are quite restrictive. 

However a motion for nonsuit does have one huge advantage in that it operates as an adjudication upon the merits “unless the court in its order for judgment otherwise specifies.” See Code of Civil Procedure § 581c.

A defendant who prevails on a motion for nonsuit is entitled to recover their costs. See Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.

A key point to remember is that anyone considering a motion for nonsuit after  plaintiff's opening statement should consider the fact that, if the defects identified are easily correctable, plaintiff will not only be alerted, they will simply oppose the motion and stress that motions for nonsuit are disfavored which they clearly are.

Attorneys or parties in California who would like to view a sample 14 page motion for nonsuit in an eviction case containing brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, a sample declaration and proposed order granting motion for nonsuit can use the link shown below. 

Sample motion for nonsuit in California eviction

Attorneys or parties who would like to view portions of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation sold by the author of this blog post can use the link shown below.

View over 300 sample legaldocuments for sale

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation. If you are in need of assistance with any California or Federal litigation matters, Mr. Burman is available on a freelance basis. Mr. Burman may be contacted by e-mail at DivParalgl@yahoo.com for more information. He accepts payments through PayPal which means that you can pay using most credit or debit cards.

*Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit http://freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/ for more information.

Follow the author on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/LegalDocsPro

You can view sample legal document packages for sale by going to http://www.legaldocspro.com/downloads.aspx

DISCLAIMER:

Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.

The materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

New trial motion in California unlawful detainer (eviction) case

http://www.legaldocspro.com/blog/motion-for-a-new-trial-in-an-unlawful-detainer-in-california/

Verification of a California unlawful detainer (eviction) complaint by an attorney

http://www.legaldocspro.com/blog/verification-of-an-unlawful-detainer-complaint-by-an-attorney-in-california/

Summary judgment motion in an unlawful detainer (eviction) case in California

A summary judgment motion in an unlawful detainer (eviction) case in California is the topic of this blog post.  This blog post will discuss a defendant filing a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff cannot separately establish one of the required elements of a cause of action for unlawful detainer.

http://www.legaldocspro.net/blog/motion-summary-judgment-california-eviction/ 

Retaliatory eviction defense in California

Retaliatory eviction defense in California is the topic of this blog post. Retaliatory eviction is a powerful affirmative defense that a tenant in California tenant can assert to an unlawful detainer (eviction) complaint.

The California Supreme Court has held that if a tenant proves retaliation by a preponderance of the evidence, he or she is entitled to a judgment of possession. And a California residential tenant who successfully defends an eviction complaint on the ground of retaliatory eviction is entitled to recover both actual and punitive damages as well as retaining possession of the property pursuant to Civil Code § 1942.5.

The law in California provides that residential landlords cannot take certain actions in retaliation for the tenant’s exercising his or her legal rights. Actions that can be considered retaliatory include increasing rent, decreasing services or causing a tenant to quit the rental property involuntarily.

The statutory provisions regarding retaliatory eviction in California are found in Civil Code §1942.5. A California tenant cannot waive his or her rights under Civil Code §1942.5.

A California tenant has a valid affirmative defense if he or she can show that the landlord retaliated against him or her in violation of Civil Code § 1942.5.

The claimed retaliatory action must have occurred within 180 days of the tenant’s lawful exercise of rights and the statutory defense may be used only once in a 12-month period pursuant to Civil Code § 1942.5.

The California Supreme Court has held that both residential and commercial tenants have a common-law affirmative defense for retaliatory actions by the landlord.  See Barela v Superior Court (Valdez) (1981) 30 Cal. 3d 244, 251.

However it is not retaliatory eviction if a landlord in good faith communicates his or her belief that the tenant is violating a term of the lease. See Morrison v Vineyard Creek (2011) 193 Cal.App 4th 1254, 1268–1271, in that case the tenant had exercised their legal right to conduct a family child-care home on the premises.

Attorneys or parties in California who would like to view a portion of a sample answer to a California eviction complaint that contains 15 affirmative defenses including retaliatory eviction that is sold by the author can use the link shown below.

 Sample answer to eviction complaint for California

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 235 sample legal documents. Visit his website at LegalDocsPro website and his Facebook page at Facebook page

If you enjoy this blog post, tell others about it. They can subscribe to the author’s weekly California legal newsletter by visiting the following link:  Subscribe to FREE weekly newsletter

Copyright 2013 Stan Burman. All rights reserved.

DISCLAIMER:

Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.

The materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.