Does a landlord providing notices without key information which do not lead to eviction considered tenant harassment?

David Alberts v. Bridge Housing Corporation

Facts: A tenant files complaints to the property management company against their landlord and later receives a notice to perform or quit about their own lease violations. The notice does not identify the property’s address, the timeline for compliance, or the specific lease violations. The landlord provides a second notice with these details included and the tenant performs according to the notice. The landlord does not file an unlawful detainer action, and the tenant is not evicted. The tenant sues the landlord for harassment.

Claim: A tenant claims sending a notice to perform or quit without key details is harassment since they were delivered after the tenant made their complaints and the landlord did not move forward with the threatened eviction.

Counterclaim: The landlord claims delivering a notice without key details is not harassment since the landlord identified valid lease violations in the second notice and the tenant performing as requested stopped the threatened eviction.

Holding: A California court holds a landlord delivering notices to perform or quit without moving forward with an eviction is not harassment since the second notice referenced valid lease violations and the tenant performed before the need for eviction. [David Alberts v. Bridge Housing Corporation (2026) __ CA __]

David Alberts v. Bridge Housing Corporation

May a landlord maintain an unlawful detainer (UD) action against a tenant who had a prior conflict with the landlord when the landlord intends to remove the property from the rental market?

Related Reading:

Real Estate Principles: Chapter 80: Three-day notices to quit – Notice to quit; no alternatives