1 LEWIS PEDIGO

3222 OAK KNOLL DRIVE

2
ROSSMOOR CA 90720
3 562-650-6146 |
lewispedigo@icloud.com
4
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE
5

6
CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER

7 GLORIA DAILY, Case No.: 30-2023-01307144-CL-UD-CJC

8 Plaintiff,
9 vs. LEWIS PEDIGO’S DEFENSES AND
OBJECTIONS IN RESPONSE TO GLORIA
10
Lewis Pedigo, Does 1-10 and All Occupants DAILY’S UNLAWFUL DETAINER
COMPLAINT
11 Defendants
12
COMES NOW, the defendant, Lewis Pedigo, who answers the unlawful detainer complaint of
13 plaintiff , Gloria Daily as follows:
14

15 1. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 1, 6c, 6d, 9d, 9e, and 11

16 2. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 1,2,3,4

3. Defendant has no information or belief that the allegations in paragraphs 5, 7, 8,
17
9a, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 are true so Defendant denies them
18
4. Except as expressly admitted herein, Defendant denies all of the allegations of the
19
complaint
20

21 FURTHER, AS SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES to each and every cause of

22 action of the complaint, this answering defendant is informed and believes, and on such
23 information and belief alleges as follows:
24 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

25
5. As a First and Separate Affirmative Defense to the complaint this answering defendant
alleges that the complaint fails to state a cause of action for unlawful detainer on the
26
grounds that the Plaintiff did not provide the Defendant with the mandatory written
27
notice of the tenants right to request an initial inspection of the rental during the last 14
28
LEWIS PEDIGO’S DEFENSES AND OBJECTIONS - 1
 1 days of the tenancy. On or about January 20 the Plaintiff daughter knocked on the door
2 and said they (the Plaintiff and her daughter) would be doing the inspection on the 31st.
3 The Defendant didn’t know he was even being deprived of any rights he had.

4
Nor was the Defendant informed about any other of his tenant rights that are mandatory
to be delivered by the Plaintiff. Even the Rent Cap addendum was buried in the lease on
5
pages 13-15 between the flood hazard and water heater disclosures, if there are any.
6
6. The complaint as well as the supplemental forms have minor errors in them.
7
a) UD 100 item 3a the city is Rossmoor. 3222 Oak Knoll Drive is specifically within the
8
parameters of Rossmoor.
9 b) As it is written on the complaint the property is in an unincorporated city of Orange
10 County - Los Alamitos is NOT unincorporated, Rossmoor is.
11 c) 6c Samantha Jones is not technically a subtenant. She does not rent from the

12 defendant, nor is there a written agreement of any kind. The Plaintiff knows her 3
years and know she is my fiancé. The correct answer would have been to select (3)
13
Other.
14

15

16

17

18 Type body of pleading here.

19 Dated this day of Month, year.
20

21
Attorney Name
22

23

24

25
Residential landlords must not take any of the following actions in retaliation for
26

27
the tenant's exercising his or her legal rights such as Increasing rent, decreasing services, or

28 causing a tenant to quit the rental property involuntarily. A tenant may not waive his or her rights
LEWIS PEDIGO’S DEFENSES AND OBJECTIONS - 2
 1 under the law. A tenant has a valid affirmative defense if he or she can show that the landlord
2
retaliated against him or her in violation of Civil Code §1942.5.In addition, both residential and
3
commercial tenants have a common-law affirmative defense for retaliatory actions by the
4
landlord. See Barela v Superior Court (Valdez) (1981) 30 Cal. 3d 244,251;
5

6 If the tenant proves retaliation by a preponderance of the evidence, he or she is

7 entitled to a  judgment of possession.

8
The claimed retaliatory action must have occurred within 180 days of the tenant's
9
lawful exercise of rights. Furthermore, the statutory defense may be used only once in a 12-
10
month period. No limit applies to the common-law defense of retaliatory eviction A tenant who
11

12 successfully defends a UD action on the ground of retaliatory evction is entitled torecover both

13 actual and punitive damages in addition to retaining possession of the property.

14
If the landlord materially breaches an express covenant in the rental
15
agreement, the tenant has a valid defense to an unlawful detainer based on nonpayment of rent.
16
The tenant’s obligation to pay rent and the landlord’s obligations under the agreement are
17

18 dependent covenants. See Green v Superior Court (1974) 10 Cal. 3d 616, 634.

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
LEWIS PEDIGO’S DEFENSES AND OBJECTIONS - 3