A contentious legal battle over a commercial lease has culminated in a court ruling that upholds the lessor's right to reclaim possession of the property and receive damages. The complaint, filed by Penny Dey as Successor Trustee in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County on June 24, 2021, names Robert Matheka as the defendant.
The case revolves around a decade-old commercial lease agreement between the Martha H. Marsh Revocable Trust and Kala Construction, Inc., with Matheka signing on behalf of the tenant. The lease began in September 2011 and included a self-renewing clause or a 30-day notice requirement for termination. Despite efforts by the plaintiff to sell the property, Matheka continued to occupy it even after receiving multiple termination notices. In March 2021, a final 30-day notice was served, but Matheka did not vacate the premises, leading to an unlawful detainer complaint being filed.
Matheka’s defense hinged on claims of retaliatory eviction and procedural errors by the lessor. He argued that his eviction was illegal due to alleged retaliatory actions by the landlord, including removing gas lines and shutting off water services. Additionally, he contended that a mistaken deposit of his rent check invalidated the eviction notice as a matter of law. However, these defenses were dismissed by both the trial court and upon appeal.
Judge James A. Kaddo ruled in favor of Dey, awarding her possession of the property and $26,818 in holdover damages. The jury found no merit in Matheka’s claims of retaliation or procedural errors. Furthermore, Matheka's appeal was denied on grounds that substantial evidence supported the original verdict and that no significant legal errors were made during the trial.
Plaintiff Sandra Johnson initially filed the complaint but passed away during litigation; her sister Penny Dey took over as trustee and plaintiff. Johnson had been attempting to sell the property for hospice care funds before her death from cancer—a fact that was emotionally leveraged during trial proceedings but ultimately deemed non-prejudicial by appellate judges.
Matheka’s appeal also raised issues about judicial bias and improper admittance of certain pieces of evidence which he claimed inflamed jury sentiment against him. However, these claims were similarly dismissed due to lack of substantial proof showing any prejudice or misconduct affecting the trial's fairness.
The plaintiffs sought possession of their property along with back rent or holdover amounts plus attorney fees—a request granted by both lower courts and upheld on appeal.
Representing himself at trial initially before obtaining counsel for his appeal, Matheka faced off against attorneys from Cal Tenant Law led by Jeremy Cook. The appellate decision was rendered without oral arguments from Dey’s side since she did not make an appearance for this phase.
This case underscores how crucial it is for tenants to understand their rights under commercial leases while highlighting how courts balance those rights against landlords' interests in summary unlawful detainer proceedings.
Attorneys involved include Jeremy Cook for defendant-appellant Robert Matheka; Judge James A. Kaddo presided over the case with appellate review conducted by Acting Presiding Justice Grimes alongside Justices Wiley and Viramontes under Case ID B321403.
___