Dutton

360 So Reeves, LLC v. Dutton

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 20, 2026JAD26-01California4,044 words

Opinion

Opinion

BACKGROUND

In a first amended complaint filed on May 21, 2024, plaintiff sought possession of a residential unit occupied by defendant in the City of Beverly Hills. The complaint alleged that on December 9, 2013, defendant became a tenant of the unit pursuant to a written lease agreement made with plaintiff’s agent. Defendant’s initial rent was $1,595 payable on the first day of each month, and the rent was subsequently increased to $1,831. On April 12, 2024, defendant was served by a registered process server with a three-day notice demanding that he pay past-due rent of $7,236—accounting for the period between June 2023 and April 2024—or relinquish possession of the premises. Defendant failed to pay the past-due rent or quit possession after the notice period expired. Defendant’s answer denied each allegation in the complaint and asserted affirmative defenses, including that the three-day notice was void by overstating the rent due, and that plaintiff failed to comply with the disclosure requirements in section 1962. After the court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the action was tried without a jury on September 25, 2024. Plaintiff’s case consisted of three…

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.