Butler-Rupp

Butler-Rupp v. Lourdeaux

Caution
134 Cal. App. 4th 1220·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 1911·2005 Daily Journal DAR 14415·36 Cal. Rptr. 3d 685·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10560
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 14, 2005A102706, A103925California4,013 words

Opinion

Opinion

Swager, J.

In this litigation arising from a landlord-tenant relationship, the landlords, Roseanna Lourdeaux and Wallace Lourdeaux (hereafter the Lourdeauxs), and their property manager, Evelyn Phelan (hereafter Phelan) appeal a judgment in favor of the tenant, Lili Butler-Rupp (hereafter Butler-Rupp) and Lili Butler Studio, Inc. (hereafter referred to collectively as plaintiff). The plaintiff separately appeals from an order denying a motion for attorney fees. We affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment in favor of plaintiff and reverse the order denying plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed a complaint on April 10, 1998, against the Lourdeauxs and Phelan alleging breach of contract and several tort causes of action, and later added additional tort causes of action in a second amended complaint filed on July 7, 2000. At the conclusion of a lengthy trial, the court instructed the jury on seven causes of action: breach of contract, promissory fraud, negligent misrepresentation, defamation, interference with tenant’s quiet enjoyment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

On March 5,…

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.