palmspringsbum - Eviction Post Trial Brief of Defendant CMB 11535

1 March 11, 2004. The notice does not sate a cause. On May 17, 2004 an Unlawful Detainer was

2 filed by the landlord against the Defendant pursuant to the said sixty day notice. The Plaintiff cannot

3 now argue that there is cause for the termination of tenancy. As summarized in the California

4 Eviction Defense Manual 2d Ed., CEB §25.68, the California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1173

5 permits only minor amendments to be made, and furthermore, that a new cause of action cannot be

6 added unless the landlord can offer proof that a second sixty day notice was served alleging a different

7 cause of action than that stated in the complaint.

8 On Wednesday, June 9, 2004, the Plaintiff testified that she was in court “because [she] served

9 a 60-day notice because [she] wanted the apartment back. The Plaintiff further testified that she

10 [had] her nephew and [her] sister living with [her] and [she] needed the apartment because [her]

11 house [was] not big enough.” These purported grounds are not a basis upon which the Court can

12 award judgment in favor of the Plaintiff.

13 IX.

14 ARGUMENT

15 NEWS BROADCAST/ADMISSION SHOULD BE ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE

16 At the time of trial the Plaintiff admitted to making statements to the news agency. She does

17 not deny the accuracy of the comments. She simply states that other statements she made to the

18 media were not included. That is not a basis upon which the Court should exclude the evidence.

19 (See Evidence Code Section 1220-1228.1, et seq.)

20 X.

21 REQUEST FOR STAY CCP §918

22 Defendant hereby requests a stay of execution in order to appeal the case if appropriate.

23 XI.

24 CONCLUSION

25
the Defendant has established by satisfactory evidence that the reason the Plaintiff filed this
26 unlawful detainer action was because she disapproved personally of his use and cultivation of