Internet Defamation – Liability of Website v. Author

Internet Defamation – Liability of Website v. Author

Internet users can and do post everything and anything on the Internet. When a false or unprivileged Internet posting exposes a person or business to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him/her to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him/her in his occupation, then the posting could constittue libel and also give rise to a false light action.

The Internet is a common and accepted means for people to publish statements and if someone has posted defamatory statements about you or your business you do have a claim against the Internet poster. “[P]laintiffs who contend they were defamed in an Internet posting may only seek recovery from the original source of the statement.” Barrett v. Rosenthal, (2006) 40 Cal.4th 33, 58. An Internet posting constitutes a publication for purposes of a defamation/false light action because the libelous communication is being made to a large number of persons as distinguished from one individual or a few. See Kinsey v. Macur, (1980) 107 Cal. App. 3d 265, 270.

Internet Defamation - Liability of Website v. Author

There are many websites that allow its users to create and generate content in which the websites will post that can and do make for defamatory statements that would be actionable against the author. These websites carry exclusive licenses for all user generated content and thus can post or take down the libelous publication. Keep in mind that various safe harbor provisions immunize websites who fall into the “online content provider” category, from defamation lawsuits. In other words, one cannot sue a website for the act of allowing someone to post a defamatory statement.

Security Deposit Refunds – Landlords Must Comply With Section 1950.5

California Civil Code Section 1950.5 requires a landlord to provide, within 21 calendar days, an itemized statement indicating the basis for, and the amount of, any security deposit received; and the disposition of the security deposit and to then return any remaining portion of the security deposit to the tenant.

Specifically, Section 1950.5(g) provides that the landlord: shall also include copies of documents showing charges incurred and deducted by the landlord to repair or clean the premises, as follows: (A) If the landlord or landlord’s employee did the work, the itemized statement shall reasonably describe the work performed. The itemized statement shall include the time spent and the reasonable hourly rate charged. (B) If the landlord or landlord’s employee did not do the work, the landlord shall provide the tenant a copy of the bill, invoice, or receipt supplied by the person or entity performing the work. The itemized statement shall provide the tenant with the name, address, and telephone number of the person or entity, if the bill, invoice, or receipt does not include that information. (C) If a deduction is made for materials or supplies, the landlord shall provide a copy of the bill, invoice, or receipt. If a particular material or supply item is purchased by the landlord on an ongoing basis, the landlord may document the cost of the item by providing a copy of a bill, invoice, receipt, vendor price list, or other vendor document that reasonably documents the cost of the item used in the repair or cleaning of the unit.

If a landlord does not comply with the statute, then a tenant can be successful on a Breach of Statutory Duty claim against the landlord and be entitled to recover the entire deposit. A Tenant would have to show that the Landlord failed to provided Tenant (within 21 calendar days) with an itemized statement concerning the Tenant’s security deposit. Once Tenant has met his/her burden of proof and establishes that Landlord breached the Statutory Duty imposed by Section 1950.5(g), then Tenant is entitled to a refund of the entire deposit. See Granberry v. Islay Investments, (1995) 9 Cal.4th 738 (California Supreme Court held that when a landlord fails to comply with Section 1950.5, then the entire security deposit must be returned to the tenant.) Id. at 745.

We recently secured a judgment for a Los Angeles tenant for his entire security deposit ($8,000.00) plust costs, fees and interest by proving on a summary judgment motion, that landlord simply failed to provide tenant with a itemized statement concerning his security deposit. The Los Angeles Superior Court held that, as a matter of law, tenant was entitled to the entire deposit. No trial on the merits were required.

The As-Is Provision in a Purchase Agreement Still Requires Full Disclosure

“As-Is” Real Estate Sales – Sellers and Seller’s Agent are always under a duty to disclose concealed or known material facts that are not known or observable by the buyer.  A property sold “As-Is” means that the buyer is buying the property in the condition that is visible or observable to the buyer. Therefore, when the Seller or the Seller’s agent fails to disclose all material facts regarding the condition of the property that are unknown to the buyer, the “As Is” provision will not relieve the Seller or Seller’s Agent fraud liability arising from the nondisclosure.  The California Supreme Court has made it clear that a seller cannot contract his/her way out of a fraudulent transaction. Herzog v. Capital Co. (1945) 27 Cal. 2d 349.

Budget Cuts Affecting Evictions

State and local budget cuts are affecting our schools, civil service and also landlords.  As diligent and expeditious landlords and their attorneys are at getting a judgment for possession in order to evict the tenant, the timeline for recovering possession gets pushed farther and farther out now that the Sheriff’s department is having to deal with budget cuts.  Some Sheriff Departments are faster than others but eviction notices don’t go up the same day, week or month that you send in your eviction package and Sheriff’s instructions.  Your eviction might be one of 300 for that week that have to be processed, served and posted by the Sheriffs.  With law enforcement staff constantly under pressure due to budget cuts, evictions are taking a back seat to public safety and other concerns and rightfully so.  It’s important to keep the lines of communications open with the Sheriff’s department regarding your eviction and remember, if the tenant you are trying to evict is a danger to other tenants, make sure to let the Sheriffs know about the specific facts and circumstances that are causing you concern.

Rules Regarding Renting Condos Subject To Association Rules

Cal. Civ. Code § 4740(a) states that “An owner of a separate interest in a common interest development shall not be subject to a provision in a governing document or an amendment to a governing document that prohibits the rental or leasing of any of the separate interests in that common interest development to a renter, lessee, or tenant unless that governing document, or amendment thereto, was effective prior to the date the owner acquired title to his or her separate interest.” Thus, an owner subject to Association Rules who was or is renting a unit prior to an association rule governing rentals is enacted, will not be subject to the Association Rules governing rentals in the association.

Owners of separate interest units contemplating renting their unit should first consult their CC&Rs and applicable association rules to determine when the rule was enacted and whether their rental will be held subject to those rules.

Medical Marijuana Landlords – Prop D Prosecutions and Civil Penalties

Landlords in Los Angeles who are leasing their properties to Medical Marijuana Business need to be mindful of the very real chance that the City Attorney will also name the Landlord as a defendant in Prop D civil complaints, as well as criminal prosecutions.  Medical Marijuana Businesses are illegal pursuant to LAMC 45.19.6.2.  However, certain immunities are available to Prop D compliant collectives/dispensaries.  Of those Marijuana Businesses that are not Prop D complaint, the City Attorney is currently pursuing both criminal and civil prosecution.  What this means to a Landlord renting to a Marijuana business not compliant with Prop D, is that the landlord could be also named as a defendant pursuant to LAMC 45.19.6.2 and subject to civil penalties (up to $2,500 per day) and also faced with injunctions and clouds on title from a lis pendens filed by the City.

 

If you are a Landlord in Los Angeles facing a civil matter stemming from your lease to a Marijuana Business, contact one of our Commercial Lease Attorneys for a free consultation and case evaluation.

Co Ownership Of Real Estate In California Does Not By Itself Create A Partnership

Under well settled California law, “Joint tenancy, tenancy in common, tenancy by the entireties, joint property, common property, or part ownership does not by itself establish a partnership, even if the co-owners share profits made by the use of the property.”  SeeCal. Corp. Code § 16202(c)(1).  “A person who receives a share of the profits of a business is presumed to be a partner in the business, unless the profits were received for any of the following reasons: (C) In payment of rent.” See Cal. Corp. Code § 16202(c)(3)(C). Thus, California’s Uniform Partnership Act would require something more than mere co-ownership to establish a partnership between two co-tenants.  Furthermore, co ownership does not in and of itself create a joint venture unless the following is established: (1) the members must have joint control over the venture (even though they may delegate it), (2) they must share the profits of the undertaking, and (3) the members must each have an ownership interest in the enterprise. See Scottsdale Ins. Co v. Essex Ins. Co., (2002) 98 Cal. App. 4th 86, 91.

 

If you are a co-owner or co-tenant in real property and have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a co-owner, contact one of our Los Angeles Real Estate Attorneys today for a free consultation and case evaluation.