Small Claims Court inquiry

[B738C]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

We moved out under CC 1942, my husband sued the landlord in small claims court for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, and won.

Since the landlord didn't give us back the security deposit, can I sue him in small claims court?

Somebody told me that we cannot sue one person (in this case a LLC) twice for the same contract.

 

[dcatz]

(I have a sense that, without some clarification/confirmation, you may not get a response.)

As I read your post, you claimed a statutory remedy for a contractual breach and you prevailed.

Civil Code sect. 1942 gives you the right to repair and deduct or to vacate. I infer that your security deposit became an issue when you vacated. If it is an issue, the issue is based on a separate statutory right.

If that inference is correct, the answer to your question is in the statute:
CC sect. 1942(d):
The remedy provided by this section is in addition to any other remedy provided by this chapter, the rental agreement, or other applicable statutory or common law.

If I’m misreading your post, please clarify as others may as well.

 

[B738C]

Thanks dkatz for your anwer.

My husband and I moved out for nuisance (the apartment was really inhabitable), one month before the expiration of the lease.

The landlord retained our securit deposit as a rent for the last month, because, he wrote, we broke the lease.

As I can understand from your answer, my husband or even me can sue again the landlord for retaining, in bad faith, our security deposit, and ask for statutory damages.

Am I correct?

Thanks again.

 

[dcatz]

Research or Google the term “constructive eviction”.

If the premises are uninhabitable, such that it constitutes a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, it arguably is the basis for a constructive eviction. This was the basis of the prior suit that you won.

You can’t breach a lease when you’ve been constructively evicted – you can’t occupy the premises.

Moreover, the fact that the premises were uninhabitable is res judicata. It's an established fact. It was established in the prior suit and the basis for the prior ruling was not appealed.

If those facts fit your scenario, there is a right to recovery.