Adams
Adams v. Kaplan CA1/5
Opinion
Opinion
Bruiniers, J.
I. BACKGROUND2
Kaplan claimed in his trial brief that Plaintiffs worked on various organic farms and gardens in Northern California during the summer of 2010, and the parties met at a farmer‟s market in Willits sometime in August of that year. Kaplan agreed that Plaintiffs could reside in a small 10‟ x 10‟ “cabin” on his property in exchange for “work[] together on a gardening project that would be mutually beneficial, [and] the residence was part of that project.” The cabin was not winterized, lacked indoor plumbing, and had only a wood stove for heating and cooking. Kaplan lived in a building located on a separate adjacent parcel, but both the cabin and Kaplan‟s home were accessed by a single gated driveway. Kaplan maintained that Plaintiffs were away from the property more than half of the time and that he made minimal work demands on them. Conflicts regarding Plaintiffs‟ occupancy of the cabin began sometime in October 2010, with disagreements about noise associated with Plaintiffs‟ return to the property at late hours and their use of Kaplan‟s bicycles and internet service. On or about December 19, after confrontations about internet access, Kaplan had a letter…