Filed 6/29/21 510PacificAve v. Weiss CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR 510PACIFICAVE, B304369 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC694882) v. AMY REBECCA WEISS, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court for Los Angeles County, Richard E. Rico, Judge. Affirmed. Tabatabai & Miyamoto and Farzad Tabatabai for Defendant and Appellant. Robert Miller for Plaintiff and Respondent. Defendant Amy Rebecca Weiss, a tenant in an apartment building owned by plaintiff 510PacificAve, the fictitious name for Lindeva Living Trust dated 8/20/03, Kim W. Lu, Trustee (Owner), appeals from the judgment in a declaratory relief action filed by Owner. Weiss contends the trial court erred by denying her post-trial request for statutory damages under the City of Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance (L.A. Mun. Code,1 ch. XV, §§ 151.00 et seq.) (LARSO) and by limiting her to $500 in attorney fees under a provision of her lease that was unilaterally amended by Owner more than a year before the present action was filed. We conclude the trial court did not err in denying Weiss’s request for statutory damages because she did not raise the issue of such damages (the determination of which requires the presentation of evidence by the parties and fact-finding by the trial court) until after the trial had been completed and the final statement of decision had been issued. We also conclude the trial court did not err in finding, based upon the record before it at the time it heard Weiss’s motion for attorney fees, that the amount of recoverable fees was limited by the amended attorney fee provision of the lease, and we reject Weiss’s arguments that the amended provision was an illegal contract. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. 1 Further undesignated statutory references are to chapter XV of the Los Angeles Municipal Code. 2 BACKGROUND Weiss entered into a lease agreement for a unit in the apartment building at issue on December 29, 2013, and has occupied that unit since that time. Owner did not own the building at the time Weiss entered into the lease; Owner obtained title to the building in June 2014. The building, which is located in Venice, California, is subject to LARSO. The lease includes the following provisions that are relevant to this appeal: • Paragraph 1 provides that the lease would continue as a leasehold until December 31, 2014, and would thereafter become a month-to-month tenancy. • Paragraph 6 provides that only Weiss could occupy the unit, and that it would be a breach of the agreement for guests to stay in the unit for 14 or more days cumulatively during …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals