Williams v. Bendetti Management Group

Filed 5/19/06  Williams v. Bendetti Management Group CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b).  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

                        Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, William F. McDonald, Judge.  Affirmed in part; reversed in part and reversed with directions in part.

                        Richard I. Singer Law Offices, Richard I. Singer and Elvi J. Olesen for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

                        Rutan & Tucker, Milford W. Dahl; Berger, Kahn, Shafton, Moss, Figler, Simon & Gladstone, Berger Kahn, Arthur Grebow, William S. Yee; Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland, Irving H. Grienes, Robert A. Olson, Laura Boudrau and Sandra J. Smith for Defendants and Appellants.

*                        *                        *

I.  PROLOGUE

                        This appeal arises out of the efforts beginning around 1997 of the owners and managers of a mobilehome park in Cypress (Lincoln Center) to have all their residents sign a certain lease form.  Ultimately, those efforts (and the lease itself) would be judged to have run afoul of both the Mobilehome Residency Law (the Mobilehome Law) and statutory protections against retaliatory evictions afforded all tenants, including those of mobilehome parks (Civ. Code, §  1942.5 (section 1942.5)).[1] 

                        The case is a complex one, because of several factors:  First, the sheer length of the record and the extraordinary number of issues raised by able counsel for both sides.  Second, there are no less than four independent components of the ultimate judgment (rescission damages, statutory penalties under the Mobilehome Law, statutory penalties under section 1942.5, and attorney fees).  Third, procedurally, the case was certified as a class action with 128 class members.  Fourth, discovery attempted to be taken of passive members of the class resulted in the dismissal of a little more than half (110) of the passive class members because they didn't return their interrogatory forms, which is a major issue by itself.  Fifth, the defendant owners and managers include multiple and overlapping parties, including two individuals named Bendetti, one of whom counts as an agent-manager of the park and the other as owner by virtue of his interest in the partnership that owns the park, and the confusion is confounded by the trial court's inclusion of both owners and managers-agents on the judgment.  Sixth, this case involves both an appeal by the defendant owners and managers and a cross-appeal by the plaintiff resident class.  Seventh, there are no less than four jury instructions (albeit all under the rubric of the section 1942.5 penalties) which have been asserted as prejudicial error.  Eighth, there are a number of issues which don't fit under the rubrics of any of the four categories of money awarded, but which represent challenges to the judgment as a whole.

                        Thus, we face at the outset a major organizational challenge in dealing with the case.  One could organize by elements of the judgment (rescission, Mobilehome Law penalties, section 1942.5 penalties, and attorney fees) with the issues pertaining to the judgment as a whole discussed before or after; organize seriatim by the â€