Mitchell v. William Warren Group CA2/2

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 21, 2024B335504California1,297 words

Opinion

Opinion

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

I. Facts

In November 2019, plaintiff signed a monthly rental contract with StorQuest for a 5-foot by 10-foot storage unit. StorQuest is the business name used by William Warren Group, Inc. (the Group). He owed $136 per month. When a Los Angeles city ordinance went into effect in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic that placed a moratorium on evictions, plaintiff stopped paying rent in August 2020. By May 2022, plaintiff owed $3,257 in unpaid rent; by October 2023, that amount had risen to $6,509.15.

II. Procedural Background

Plaintiff sued the Group in 2022, and the trial court dismissed the operative complaint without prejudice when plaintiff opted not to file an amended complaint after the court sustained a demurrer with leave to amend. Three days after that May 2023 dismissal, plaintiff sued the Group again. Plaintiff’s 119-paragraph complaint (the new complaint) alleged the same eight claims as in the prior lawsuit— namely, (1) sexual harassment under the Unruh Act (Civ. Code, § 51), (2) sex discrimination under the Unruh Act (ibid.), (3) gender

2 violence (id., § 52.4), (4) breach of contract, (5) negligence, (6) conversion, (7)…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.