Bauman

Bauman v. Islay Investments

Good Law
119 Cal. Rptr. 681·1975 Cal. App. LEXIS 1731·45 Cal. App. 3d 797
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 6, 1975Civ. 44145California1,630 words

Opinion

Opinion

Fleming, J.

Holly Bauman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, appeals the judgment which dismissed her class action against Islay Investments, a partnership, for failure to establish the requisites for a class action.

Bauman’s action, filed November 1971, relied on Civil Code section 1950.5 (former § 1951), which limits the landlord’s claim against a tenant’s deposit to secure performance of a rental agreement to the amount reasonably necessary to remedy the tenant’s default and provides that bad faith retention of the unused portion of the deposit may subject the landlord to $200 damages in addition to actual damages. Bauman sought to represent past and present tenants of 22 apartment buildings owned by Islay in Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties, who, after 1 January 1971, the effective date of section 1950.5, entered written agreements with Islay Investments and paid “nonrefundable cleaning fee[s].” Bauman alleged that Islay refused to refund those portions of the cleaning fees not used to clean the apartments of tenants who terminated their tenancies, that such tenants were entitled to recover the unused portions of their cleaning fees, that present tenants…

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.