Walker v. G.C. Block Investments, LLC CA1/3

Filed 4/22/21 Walker v. G.C. Block Investments, LLC CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

ALVA DENISE WALKER et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, A158541 v. G.C. BLOCK INVESTMENTS, LLC (Contra Costa County et al., Super. Ct. No. CIVMSC17- 00790) Defendants and Respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Plaintiffs Alva Denise Walker, Cleve Robert Walker, and Lindsey Jameice Walker appeal from a judgment after a jury trial. They contend the trial court erroneously dismissed their cause of action for violation of Civil Code section 789.32 by way of an in limine ruling. Because plaintiffs have not provided an adequate record to show error, we shall affirm.

1 We resolve this case by abbreviated form of opinion as permitted by California Rules of Court, Standard 8.1, which provides that a memorandum opinion is appropriate when the appeal “raise[s] no substantial issues of law or fact.” 2 Further statutory references are to the Civil Code unless stated otherwise. Section 789.3, subdivision (a), provides: “A landlord shall not with intent to terminate the occupancy under any lease or other tenancy or estate at will, however created, of property used by a tenant as his residence

1

According to the complaint, plaintiffs were residents of property located in Antioch (the property) under a month to month lease with the prior owner of the property. In December 2016, the property was sold at a trustee’s sale to defendants G.C. Block Investments, LLC and Patrick Gallagher. After defendants served notices to quit or vacate the property, plaintiffs agreed they would vacate by March 6, 2017. However, defendants started demolition of the property in February 2017, making it uninhabitable. As part of the demolition, the sinks, stove, and toilets were removed, and plaintiffs’ personal belongings were thrown away. Plaintiffs asserted causes of action against defendants for trespass, invasion of privacy, breach of contract, breach of quiet enjoyment, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, wrongful eviction, and violations of section 789.3. Prior to trial, defendants filed motions in limine, including motion in limine no. 2 to exclude “any mention of attorney fees and treble damages.” On May 6, 2019, at an unreported hearing, the trial court granted motion in limine no. 2. The register of actions in this case demonstrates as follows. Plaintiffs began their case in chief on June 5, 2019, and rested their case on June 12, 2019. On June 13, 2019, during a reported hearing, the trial court “hear[d] arguments as to causes of action” and “[made] rulings as to the alleged causes of action as stated on the record.” The defense called no witnesses. After closing arguments, the jury deliberated and returned a verdict for plaintiffs on their causes of action for trespass, invasion of privacy, and trespass to