Greg Loomis
Member
What is the name of your state? California.
Hi. My question covers a lot of territory: general litigation, evictions, security deposits, and small claims. I hope I can get a good answer here. If not I hope I can repost this in another forum.
I recently had a run-in with my landlords. They filed an eviction suit against me (a nuisance clause not involving the payment of rent) and we ultimately entered into a stipulation immediately before the case went before the Judge.
We agreed that I would move out and that they would pay me $5000.00. We agreed that my security deposit would be treated “according to code.”
So – I moved out and they paid me the $5000.00. The Judge held a hearing to show cause for why the case should not be dismissed. No one showed up at the hearing (myself nor my landlords) and so the Judge dismissed the eviction suit without prejudice.
Now my landlords have returned the balance of my security deposit but they have retained $65.00 because (they claim) that I breached a term in our stipulation. (The $65.00 is my approximate daily rent.) They claim that I had to be out of the apartment by 6:00 pm, but that I did not vacate until after 6:00 pm.
I disagree. I did not breach our stipulation.
In the letter that accompanied their check they specifically claim that they retained the $65.00 because of a “court order” (exact words) that allowed them to do so. But there is no such court order. In fact the Judge held a hearing to show cause; but they didn’t show cause; and the eviction suit was dismissed without prejudice.
So here is my question:
I am going to sue them in small claims court to recover other bad-faith deductions that I have not mentioned here. If I attempt to recover this $65 can the small claims Judge (re)try their alleged ‘breach of stipulation’?
I know that “dismissed without prejudice” means they can retry the eviction suit as on ordinary civil case, but what about the stipulation itself?
They had the opportunity to show cause before the case was dismissed but they didn’t do it.
That's cheating.
Am I protected by the doctrine of Res Rudicata?
Hi. My question covers a lot of territory: general litigation, evictions, security deposits, and small claims. I hope I can get a good answer here. If not I hope I can repost this in another forum.
I recently had a run-in with my landlords. They filed an eviction suit against me (a nuisance clause not involving the payment of rent) and we ultimately entered into a stipulation immediately before the case went before the Judge.
We agreed that I would move out and that they would pay me $5000.00. We agreed that my security deposit would be treated “according to code.”
So – I moved out and they paid me the $5000.00. The Judge held a hearing to show cause for why the case should not be dismissed. No one showed up at the hearing (myself nor my landlords) and so the Judge dismissed the eviction suit without prejudice.
Now my landlords have returned the balance of my security deposit but they have retained $65.00 because (they claim) that I breached a term in our stipulation. (The $65.00 is my approximate daily rent.) They claim that I had to be out of the apartment by 6:00 pm, but that I did not vacate until after 6:00 pm.
I disagree. I did not breach our stipulation.
In the letter that accompanied their check they specifically claim that they retained the $65.00 because of a “court order” (exact words) that allowed them to do so. But there is no such court order. In fact the Judge held a hearing to show cause; but they didn’t show cause; and the eviction suit was dismissed without prejudice.
So here is my question:
I am going to sue them in small claims court to recover other bad-faith deductions that I have not mentioned here. If I attempt to recover this $65 can the small claims Judge (re)try their alleged ‘breach of stipulation’?
I know that “dismissed without prejudice” means they can retry the eviction suit as on ordinary civil case, but what about the stipulation itself?
They had the opportunity to show cause before the case was dismissed but they didn’t do it.
That's cheating.
Am I protected by the doctrine of Res Rudicata?
Last edited:
