1 Even if the Court finds that Millard was aware of the filing prior to May 17, 2004, The
2 Court has the discretion to accept the defense or reject it. Proof that the unlawful detainer was
filed before the expiration of the protection period simply creates an inference of retaliation, not a
5 presumption. Western land Office, inc. v. Cervantes (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 724.
6 The Court must consider the following:
7 • Millard filed the first action against defendant in November, 2003, but no claim
8 was filed with the DEFH until April 22, 2004.
• A month and half elapsed between the service of the 60-day notice and the filing
of the DFEH claim.
• The claim filed with the DFEH was fully investigated and denied
It is Millard's contention that the claim of defendant was filed with the DFEH as a means
14 to retaliate against Millard and to delay the filing of the unlawful detainer. It was just by
circumstances unfortunate to defendant that Millard was not aware of the claim prior to filing.
19 Based on the evidence presented at trial in this matter, Millard requests this Court to
20 render decision in her favor.
21 Counsel for defendant has suggested that upon receiving a disfavorable ruling in ths case
he intends to bring an action for stay of enforcement under CCP § 918. Such a motion must be
brought on motion or on ex-parte allowing for hearing from both parties. Should defendant
25 attempt to bring such a motion in the closing brief, same must be denied.
27 Dated: Jul 14, 2004
28 Lynne Romano, Attorney for Plaintiff
- 8 -