Courts shall go to particular pains to protect pro se litigants against consequences of technical errors if injustice would otherwise result.

U.S. v. Sanchez, 88 F.3d 1243 (D.C.Cir. 1996). But to evict the tenant and a subtenant for a curable breach, the subtenant must be served with a separate notice; service of a copy of the tenant notice is not sufficient. Briggs v Electronic Memories & Magnetics Corp. (1975) 53 CA3d 900, 904905, 126 CR 34

(10) Overpayment of rent. Previous overpayments of rent entitle the tenant to an offset. See Minelian v Manzella (1989) 215 CA3d 457, 463 465, 263 CR 597 (when landlord charges and tenant pays rent in excess of maximum rent allowable under local rent control ordinance, tenant has affirmative defense to unlawful detainer action based on claim that rent has already been paid). See also Sego v Santa Monica Rent Control Bd. (1997) 57 CA4th 250, 259262, 67 CR2d 68 (local rent control board must issue a certificate of permissible rent levels under CC 1947.8(c) on request of either landlord or tenant to resolve rent dispute between them)

(12) Constructive eviction. The landlord has breached the covenant of quiet enjoyment, resulting in a constructive eviction under which the tenant was justified in refusing to pay rent. See Stoiber v Honeychuck (1980) 101 CA3d 903, 925926, 162 CR 194; Clark v Spiegel (1971) 22 CA3d 74, 7980, 99 CR 86. (13) Unlawfully influencing tenant to vacate. It is unlawful for a landlord to do any of the following for the purpose of influencing a tenant to vacate a dwelling: (1) engage in conduct that violates Pen C 484(a) (theft) or 518 (extortion); (2) use, or threaten to use, force, willful threats, or menacing conduct that interferes with the tenants quiet enjoyment of the premises in violation of CC 1927 that would create an apprehension of harm in a reasonable person; or (3) commit a significant and intentional violation of CC 1954. CC 1940.2(a), (b) (tenant is entitled to civil penalty of up to $2000 for each violation). Also note that a landlord may not inquire about, or require a statement or certification concerning, the immigration or citizenship status of a tenant or occupant of residential rental property. CC 1940.3(b). 3. [31.53] Motion for Judgment on Pleadings The court may also grant judgment on the pleadings on its own motion when the complaint overstates the amount of rent that is due. See Jayasinghe v Lee (1993) 13 CA4th Supp 33, 3637, 17 CR2d 117. On the requirements for motions for judgment on the pleadings, see CALIFORNIA JUDGES BENCHBOOK: CIVIL PROCEEDINGSBEFORE TRIAL, SECOND EDITION, 12.14412.169 (Cal CJER 2008).

Unlawful Detainer proceedings are summary proceedings. As such, the court is not equipped to handle lengthy disputes over title and ownership. As a result, California case law suggests that unlawful detainer courts cannot deal with title disputes. This does not mean, however, that title is presumed to be proper with the plaintiff who brings an unlawful detainer action to recover

possession. Indeed, the Plaitniff must still show that it is the real party in interest (has standing to pursue the unlawful detainer) by demonstrating it has a right to posssession. The general Civil Code provisions related to proper parties in proceedings fully apply to unlawful detainers. CCP 1165. The plaintiff must be the real party in interest with respect to the claim sued upon. CCP 367, Dino v. Pelayo (2006) 145 CA4th 347, 353. The real party in interest is the person who holds title to the claim or property involved. Gantman v. United Pac. Ins. Co. (1991). In unlawful detainer actions the plaintiffs right to possession is what qualifies the plaintiff as the real party in interest. CCP 367, 1166(a)(2). While it may be true that title disputes cannot be litigated in summary unlawful detainer proceedings. Matters that cannot be raised by cross-complaint can, however, be pursued in an independent civil action. And where an unlawful detainer defendants civil suit raises title issues, the court may either stay the unlawful detainer action or order it consolidated with the general jurisdiction matter. Wilson v. Gentile (1992) 8 CA4th 759, 761. A stay of the unlawful detainer action is appropriate because if the tenant prevails on the claim of title it will defeat the landlords right to recover possession of the premises. Id. at 761. Accordingly, where landlord and tenant are litigating title in an independent civil action and an unlawful detainer is simultaneously pending between them, the trial court has power to stay the unlawful detainer action. Asuncion v. Super. Ct. (1980) 108 CA3d 141. Indeed, the Court of Appeals, in Asuncion held that it may stay an unlawful detainer proceeding pending the resolution of the independent title action. The court held that it can: Stay the eviction proceedings until trial of the fraud action, based on the authority of Code of Civil Procedure 526 which permits a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo on such grounds as irreparable injury, multiplicity of actions, or unconscionable relative hardship. Id. at 146; citing Continental Baking Co. v. Katz (1968) 68 Cal. 2d 512, 528. In Asuncion, the W.C. Financial, Inc. (W.C.) filed an unlawful detainer complaint following what they claimed was the lawful sale of the underlying real property. Id. at 142. The unlawful detainer defendants, Asuncion, in turn, filed a general civil complaint in the superior court against W.C. alleging fraud, usury, unfair business practices, truth and lending violations, undue influence, and other causes, and requesting title to the property be quieted in their favor. Id. at 143. The Court of Appeals recognized that the summary unlawful detainer action is not a suitable vehicle to try complicated ownership issues as the Asuncions had alleged. Id. at 144. The court further held, the summary nature of unlawful detainer proceedings suggest that, as a practical matter, the likelihood of the defendants [W.C.] being prepared to litigate the factual issues involved in a fraudulent scheme to deprive him of his property, no matter how diligent defendant is, is not great. Ibid.; [citations omitted] The court further held homeowners cannot be evicted, consistent with due process guarantees, without being permitted to raise the affirmative defenses which if proved would maintain their possession and ownership. Id. at 146. (Emphasis Added) Such a procedure would be unfair. Ibid. When title to the property is at issue in unlawful detainer actions, and a title action is not within the jurisdiction of the unlawful detainer court, the unlawful detainer defendants must be afforded their due process. Ibid. The way to afford defendants their due process is to stay the eviction until the title issues can be resolved in the general jurisdiction superior court. Ibid. For more information, contact Zachary D. Schorr of Schorr Law, APC. www.schorr-law.com, 310954-1877, zschorr@schorr-law.com.