DeZerega v. Meggs
Filed 3/20/06 DeZerega v. Meggs CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
| DAVID DeZEREGA et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. JASON MEGGS, Defendant and Appellant. | A109326 (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. 2001033757) |
Appellant Jason Meggs appeals from a judgment awarding respondents David and Sarah DeZerega more than $35,000 in damages for unpaid rent, as well as attorney fees and costs. We agree with Meggs that the statute of limitations barred a portion of the DeZeregas' claim and that the DeZeregas were barred from collecting attorney fees. Substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding that the DeZeregas were entitled to the full amount of rent for the portion of their claim that is not time barred. We therefore reverse in part and affirm in part.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
A. DeZerega I.
The history of the ongoing dispute between these parties has been set out in two previous opinions from this court, DeZerega v. Meggs (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 28 (DeZerega I), and DeZerega v. City of Berkeley Rent Stabilization Bd. (Nov. 14, 2003, A100054, A100583 [nonpub. opn.]) (DeZerega II). In DeZerega I, we affirmed a judgment for Meggs after the trial court granted summary judgment for him in the DeZeregas' unlawful detainer action against him. Because the factual background set forth in that opinion is relevant to the issues now on appeal, we quote the opinion at length:
â€
