At the conclusion of testimony, the parties agreed to submit briefs in lieu of
closing arguments. These briefs are not contained in the record.
The court prepared a written Statement of Decision. The court found
respondent to have been a more credible witness than appellant. It concluded
the eviction was not motivated by appellant's use of medical marijuana and was
neither retaliatory nor discriminatory. In support of its conclusion, the court listed
the following findings:
1. Respondent was not initially bothered by appellant's
cultivation or use of marijuana; the relationship between the parties worsened
when appellant's utility bills increased sharply.
2. Respondent wanted to let her nephew live on her property.
3. Respondent served the 60-day notice to quit before she knew
about the FEHA complaint.
4. Appellant did not use marijuana solely for medicinal purposes.
as evidenced by his having given respondent a marijuana-laced brownie.
The court entered judgment for respondent, returning possession to her.
This appeal followed.
Appellant first contends he was protected from eviction for at least six
months by Civil Code section 1942.5. Under that statute, if a tenant successfully
defends against an unlawful detainer case on the ground that the eviction was in
retaliation for the tenant's exercise of certain rights, then the landlord may not