A tenant's battle for justice takes a significant turn as the California Court of Appeal reverses a lower court's decision, granting her the right to seek reasonable attorney fees. Wen Shen filed a complaint in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County on March 2019 against her landlord, Gary Prato, following a tumultuous tenancy marked by severe property damage and alleged retaliatory eviction.
The case stems from an incident in September 2018 when Shen returned to her Woodland Hills home to find extensive water and sewage damage due to a burst toilet line. Declaring the house uninhabitable, she moved to a hotel but continued paying rent. Despite Prato's prompt efforts to dry out the house, repairs were delayed amid disputes over access and repair protocols. Tensions escalated when Prato issued a 60-day notice to vacate after Shen called the police during an unannounced repair visit.
Shen’s lawsuit encompassed multiple claims, including breach of warranty of habitability and retaliatory eviction under Civil Code section 1942.5. While Prato secured summary adjudication on several claims, the jury trial resulted in mixed outcomes: they ruled in favor of Prato on habitability but sided with Shen on retaliatory eviction, awarding her $20,020 in damages.
Central to this appeal was Shen’s pursuit of attorney fees amounting to $246,430 under section 1942.5(i), which mandates reasonable attorney fees for prevailing parties in retaliatory eviction cases. The trial court initially capped these fees at $1,000 based on the lease agreement’s terms and denied further costs citing jurisdictional discretion under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033(a).
However, the appellate court found this interpretation flawed. They emphasized that statutory provisions like section 1942.5 override contractual limitations when designed to serve significant public interests—in this case, protecting tenants from retaliation and ensuring housing standards are upheld through private enforcement actions.
Judge Valerie Salkin’s original ruling failed to recognize that such statutory rights cannot be waived or limited by private agreements per section 3513. The appellate court clarified that mandatory statutory remedies for attorney fees must be honored irrespective of lease stipulations or recovery amounts below general jurisdiction thresholds.
This reversal mandates the lower court reassess Shen’s entitlement to reasonable attorney fees without being constrained by contractual caps or discretionary cost limitations applicable only under permissive statutes like FEHA.
Represented by Raymond Zakari from Law Offices of Liddle & Liddle, Wen Shen now awaits a recalculated award reflecting her legal expenditures in holding Gary Prato accountable for unlawful eviction practices—a crucial step reinforcing tenant protections against landlord reprisals.