In Eshagian v. Cepeda (2025) B340941, the Court of Appeals held that a tenant cannot appeal a judgment for possession in an unlawful detainer proceeding if the landlord has outstanding damages claims that have not been adjudicated because the case was not yet final.  This case involved a default judgment for possession only but the default was after discovery terminating sanctions.  This case was a royal shit show!  (That is a technical legal term.)  The Court treated the “appeal” as a writ to save time.  This is also a rare case where the Court of Appeal, 2nd District, transferred the case to it from the Los Angeles Superior Court Appellate Department.  The short answer for the Court’s holding is an unlawful detainer cause of action is for “rent” AND “possession”.  Since the landlord can still seek “rental damages”, the matter was not yet final. The Appellate Department had held the possession judgment “was final under these unique circumstances”, whatever those are, but I assume the terminating sanctions was the reason.  The reason the tenant won is a common error by landlords (or their attorneys), the Three Day Notice was defective.  The defect was the form was “invalid for failure to make clear by when and how Cepeda had to pay the rent” so it failed to state a cause of action.  I am impressed with the Basta lawyers, they even filed a motion under CCP §663.

The error was failure to comply with CCP 1161(2).  “The notice did not specify the date on which the three-day notice commenced (simply listing “12/19/2022” on the notice to the left of Eshagian’s signature with no explanation), nor did it state that Cepeda would lose possession of the premises if he did not pay the amount due by a specified date.”

As if directly from the book “3 Day Notice for Dummies”, the Court stated 1. the three-day notice was deficient because while titled, “3 Day Notice To Pay Or Quit,” it did not state that Eshagian would repossess the premises if Cepeda did not pay rent prior to expiration of the three-day notice period.  The mere use of the words “pay or quit” in the title of the document was insufficient to “clearly, positively, and unequivocally” place Cepeda on notice that he was facing imminent eviction.  (Horton-Howard v. Payton, supra, 44 Cal.App. at p. 112; accord, Hinman v. Wagnon, supra, 172 Cal.App.2d at pp. 27-28.)

Second, the notice did not state when the notice period commenced or ended, nor did it inform Cepeda that the three-day period excluded weekends and judicial holidays.  The notice appears to have provided the date it was signed by Eshagian but not when the notice was served, which commenced the three-day period.  We observe, for example, that the notice is dated December 19, 2022, but the complaint alleged the notice was served “[o]n or about December 20, 2022.”  Absent this information, an ordinary tenant would not have reasonably understood the deadline by which the tenant needed to pay the rent due to avoid forfeiture of the premises.

Third, the notice was deficient because it did not provide a clear address where rent could be paid, as required by section 1161(2).  The address listed on the notice was the leased premises where Cepeda lived.  By directing Cepeda to deliver the rent to Eshagian at the unit where Cepeda lived, and specifying that the rent could be delivered to Eshagian between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. (when presumably Eshagian would not be in the rental unit), the notice did not meet the Legislature’s stated purpose “to avoid confusion and ‘protect both landlords and tenants alike, by setting forth clear rules for payment to whom and where.’”  (Sheehan, supra, 105 Cal.App.5th at p. 75.)

The Notice failed to state a cause of action for unlawful detainer, so the possession-only judgment must be reversed.  (See Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc., supra, 201 Cal.App.4th at p. 282 [“if the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint do not state any proper cause of action, the default judgment in the plaintiff’s favor cannot stand”]; Sheehan, supra, 105 Cal.App.5th at p. 75 [“service of a ‘valid three-day notice to pay rent or quit is a prerequisite to an unlawful detainer action’”].)

(I will withhold judgment on the plaintiff’s lawyers because I know them, but OMG!)…
Continue Reading An Unlawful Detainer Possession Only Judgment is Not Appealable and a “default judgment” can be reversed if a cause of action is not stated! (Eshagian v. Cepeda (2025) B340941, 6/26/2025, 2nd Appellate District)