Barboza v. Osuna CA2/8

Filed 1/12/21 Barboza v. Osuna CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

MIGUEL BARBOZA, B303651

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC706832) v.

ELENA OSUNA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Elaine Lu, Judge. Affirmed.

LOSMP and Shane M. Popp for Defendant and Appellant.

The Law Office of Marcus Gomez and Marcus Gomez for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________________

SUMMARY Plaintiff sued defendant under the rent stabilization ordinance of the City of Los Angeles (L.A. Mun. Code, §§ 151.00 et seq.) for excessive collection of rent during 2011 and 2012. After a bench trial, the court rejected defendant’s assertion the statute of limitations barred the claim, ruling the delayed discovery rule applied to toll the statute. The court found defendant collected $6,930 of rent in excess of the maximum rent, and awarded plaintiff three times that amount as provided under the ordinance. (§ 151.10, subd. A.) (All unidentified section references are to the rent stabilization ordinance.) Defendant appeals, contending the delayed discovery rule does not apply, plaintiff did not prove unlawful collection of rent under the rent stabilization ordinance, and the trial court erred in calculating damages. None of these claims has merit, so we affirm the judgment. FACTS Since at least 2008, plaintiff Miguel Barboza lived in a “rear home”—a garage unit at the rear of a property on 7th Street in Los Angeles. There was no permit for the garage unit, and there is no evidence it was registered under the rent stabilization ordinance. In 2008, plaintiff paid $600 a month in rent to his father. At some point, plaintiff’s sister, defendant Elena Osuna, took charge of managing the property, and in 2011 she raised plaintiff’s rent to $900 a month. Plaintiff paid approximately $900 a month during 2011 and the first 10 months of 2012. After a family discussion, the rent went back down to $600. Rent increases after that did not exceed 3 percent. Plaintiff did not