Guttman v. Chiazor, No. JAD17-15, (L.A. Super. App. Div. Sept. 8, 2017)
The appellate division of LA Superior construes Code of Civil Procedure § 1174.2 to provide a right to jury trial on the affirmative defense of breach of the warranty of habitability in an unlawful detainer proceeding. In subsections (a) and (b), the statute makes reference to “the court” as trying issues. But that is rendered ambiguous by (d)’s clear statement that the statute is not intended to deny the tenant a right to a jury trial. Given that the legislative history is super clear that the whole point of enacting (d) was to avoid interpretations that (a) and (b) permitted only a bench trial, the right was provided by the statute. Thus, there’s no need to get into an analysis of whether it was required constitutionally. Moreover, the error was per se-reversible structural error, requiring reversal without regard to whether it was harmless.
Reversed.
The counsel lineup in this case made me smile a little. It’s an appellate division case over evicting someone for not paying two grand in rent. I’m sure landlord’s counsel was none too pleased when LAFLA brought in four lawyers from Munger Tolles & Olson—including a senior partner who clerked for Justice Ginsburg—to work the appeal. A twenty minute conference call with these guys in a paid case likely exceeds the amount in controversy.
I once had a pro bono case in L.A. Superior mental health court—a very well-meaning, but totally dysfunctional sh*tshow, so far as quality of zealous advocacy goes. When we swapped in for the client’s PD, I appeared with the junior associate who was going to try the case with me. The judge—commissioner, actually—was super suspect. “Why are there two of you?” she asked, with discernible pique.
In the many hours I waited around Department 95, not once did I see anyone get out from under a Lanterman-Petris-Short conservatorship. Probably fifty cases. Many of these people were obviously unable to care for themselves. But all of them? Our client did. He was released from a locked mental health facility that week. Last I heard, he’s doin’ fine.
It was one of the most fulfilling things I’ve done in my career. Do pro bono. It matters.
I saw this oral argument and know the people involved at the trial court level.
ReplyDeleteThis case ended up on appeal because (a) the original reduction of rent for habitability problems was 100% and (b) the landlord's original lawyer is too aggressive (and was replaced for oral argument). His ill-advised appeals have resulted in a lot of good case law for tenants. This case, for example, eliminates a lot of questions for every other habitability case. To the system, it’s worth a lot more $2,000 in damages.
The involvement of Munger Tolles & Olson seems to have been self-promotion. The arguments for the right to a jury trial that have been argued for years and are pretty well developed.
At best, MT&O reinvented the wheel. At worst, they just copied this work.
MT&O sent two kids to oral argument. These two lawyers split a 10-minute oral argument, like it was moot court. They read from binders -- after it was clear that they had won on the briefs and that talking could only hurt them. Then, one of them had to be told that sur-rebutals were not allowed.
The tenant’s trial attorney would have done a better job. I know her and can only assume that she must have unjustifiably lacked the confidence in her abilities.
Your pro bono work mattered to the client who was released from a locked facility. This pro bono work was obviously training for puppies.