Lambdin

Lambdin v. Mangold Property Management CA6

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 20, 2025H052517California3,875 words

Opinion

Opinion

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiffs’ Tenancy Plaintiffs were tenants of property managed by defendant Mangold. After the owner of the property decided to sell, Mangold sought to have plaintiffs vacate the premises. Plaintiffs failed to leave the property and failed to pay rent for a period of time. Mangold initiated an unlawful detainer action. While the unlawful detainer action was pending, plaintiffs vacated the property. B. Civil Lawsuit In June 2022, plaintiffs filed a civil lawsuit against Mangold, property manager Kyle Strutner, Mangold’s president Craig Coming, and Mangold’s collections manager Ashley Blackmon.2 Plaintiffs alleged that defendants committed retaliation and other wrongdoing. Plaintiffs alleged the following 17 causes of action: (1) retaliation, (2) trespass, (3) nuisance, (4) declaratory relief, (5) rescission, (6) lockout, (7) invasion of privacy, (8) defamation, (9) failure to return security deposit, (10) illegal charges, (11) conversion, (12) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (13) violation of the Tenant Protection Act (Civ. Code, §§ 1946.2, 1947.12), (14) violation of the Tenant Relief Act (Code Civ. Proc., § 1179.04, subd.…

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.