palmspringsbum - Eviction Post Trial Brief of Plaintiff CMB 11535

1 III.

2 APPLICABILITY OF THE UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT

3 The defense as plead in defendants Answer at Attachment 3j, paragraph f, and as

4
presented by defendant at trial is: Millard has discriminated against defendant for his use of
5

6 marijuana. The Unruh Civil Rights Act, codified at California Civil Code § 51 et seq. does not

7 include the use, possession or growing of marijuana as a protected right.

8 No evidence was presented by defendant that Millard seeks to evict him because of his

9
sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, or disability. In fact, to the contrary. The
10
evidence presented shows that Millard was aware of defendants purported bi-polar condition and
11
made no attempt to remove him from the property. She was also aware of his use of marijuana
12

13 and made no attempt to evict him. She attempted to evict him only when she was informed that

14 he was conducting illegal activity on the property and when he became verbally abusive and

15
threatening.
16

17 IV.

18 NO PROOF OF RETALIATION OFFERED BY DEFENDANT

19 Defendant claims that the present case was filed in retaliation against defendant because

20 the Court dismissed the previous unlawful detainer action, CMB 11396. Defendant has

21 requested that the Court take judicial notice of the previous case and Millard has no objection.

22 In reviewing CMB 11396, this Court will find that the case was dismissed simply on the

23
Court's opinion that the 3-day notice served was not a sufficient basis for the unlawful detainer.
24

25 Millard had no basis to "retaliate against defendant and did not do so. It was not by defendants

26 efforts that the case was dismissed but based on the Court's ruling on a legal issue.

27 The testimony of Millard proves that it was her intent (for reasons discussed earlier) to

- 6 -