Hayer

Gill Petrolium, Inc. v. Hayer

Good Law
137 Cal. App. 4th 826·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 353·2006 Daily Journal DAR 3129·40 Cal. Rptr. 3d 648·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2222
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 15, 2006C047075California2,667 words

Opinion

Opinion

Scotland, J.

Plaintiff Gill Petrolium, Inc., obtained an unlawful detainer judgment against defendants Amrik S. Hayer and Manjinder S. Hayer, which declared the forfeiture of defendants’ lease of the business premises and awarded plaintiff “per diem damages” for the period of time in which defendants were in the premises after expiration of the three-day notice to pay rent or vacate the premises. Thereafter, the trial court granted defendants’ motion for relief from forfeiture of the lease (Code Civ. Proc., § 1179) and ordered that “equity will be served if Defendants pay to Plaintiff only the contract amount of rent (including . . . penalties and interest) as opposed to the per diem damages set forth in the judgment . . . .” (Further section references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise specified.) Plaintiff appeals.

In the published portion of this opinion, we reject plaintiff’s claim that the trial court “had no jurisdiction under [section] 1179 to reconsider and modify the [per diem] damages awarded in the judgment.” Section 1179 provides that the court “may relieve a tenant against a forfeiture of a lease . . . and restore [the tenant] to his or her former…

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.