In December 2020, John R. De Paolo, as trustee of the De Paolo Trust, hired Jenny Rosales as the onsite resident manager for an apartment property in Sherman Oaks owned by the De Paolo Trust. The parties executed a written resident manager’s agreement that required Rosales to reside on the property for the convenience of the owner. The agreement expressly stated their relationship was solely one of employer and employee, that her employment was “at will,” that the owner could terminate the agreement at any time with or without cause, and that upon termination she was required to vacate the unit within 30 days and restore possession to the owner free of all occupants.
In November 2020, Rosales moved into the property and began working as resident manager. Her partner, Richard Charlemagne, later moved into the unit as an additional occupant. He never signed a separate lease or resident agreement with the owner.
On August 9, 2023, the owner sent Rosales a written termination letter stating that her employment as resident manager would end effective August 10, 2023. The letter referenced the resident manager’s agreement and directed her to vacate the unit within 30 days. Rosales sent an email acknowledging receipt of the letter and stating, “I consider this retaliation due to reports I have made against your illegal business practices.”
Rosales did not vacate the premises after her employment ended. The owner testified that after termination, she continued to attempt to pay rent, but he returned all rent payments. He later discovered that Rosales had deposited money into his account without authorization and returned those funds as well.
In July 2024, the owner served a 30-day notice to quit based on Rosales’s failure to vacate following termination of her employment. Rosales and Charlemagne remained in possession. In August 2024, the owner filed an unlawful detainer action seeking possession of the premises. He sought possession only and did not seek holdover damages.
Rosales and Charlemagne filed an answer asserting that they were tenants entitled to protections under the Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (TPA). They argued that the 30-day notice to quit was void because the landlord failed to provide the Tenant Protection Act’s required written disclosure about rent limits and just-cause protections when Rosales first signed the resident manager’s agreement. They contended that without that disclosure, the termination notice was legally ineffective. They also asserted that the TPA required just cause for termination and a 60-day notice rather than a 30-day notice. They raised improper notice and retaliatory eviction as defenses.
The trial court entered judgment for the owner. The trial court found that Rosales’s right to occupy the unit was contingent upon her employment as resident manager and that her occupancy ended when her employment was lawfully terminated. The trial court further found that Charlemagne had no independent tenancy and occupied only as an additional occupant under Rosales’s agreement. The trial court rejected the retaliatory eviction defense and awarded possession to the owner. Rosales and Charlemagne appealed.
The appellate court explained that when housing is provided as part of employment, the right to remain in the unit ends when the job ends. If the employee stays after lawful termination, the owner may file an unlawful detainer action.
The written manager’s agreement expressly provided that Rosales’s occupancy was required for the owner’s convenience, that employment was at will, and that she must vacate within 30 days following termination. The appellate court concluded that the agreement was unambiguous and that Rosales’s right of possession was entirely dependent upon her employment.
The appellate court explained that once Rosales’s employment terminated and the 30-day period elapsed, her right to occupy the unit ended. At that point, her continued presence was no longer lawful. A terminated resident manager who unlawfully remains in possession is at most a tenant at sufferance or a licensee, not a tenant with an independent right of possession. Because the TPA protects only lawful tenancies, it did not apply to Rosales’s post-termination occupancy. Although the TPA lists failure to vacate after termination of employment as an at-fault just cause ground for eviction, that provision does not convert employment-based housing into a protected tenancy after the employment ends.
The appellate court also concluded that Charlemagne had no independent leasehold interest. He occupied the unit only as Rosales’s additional occupant, and his right to remain ended when hers did.
The appellate court next addressed the retaliatory eviction defense under Civil Code section 1942.5. The appellate court explained that a tenant-employee may defeat an unlawful detainer action if the employment termination was unlawful or retaliatory. The burden rests on Rosales to prove retaliatory motive by a preponderance of the evidence.
Aside from Rosales’s assertion that the termination was retaliatory because she had reported alleged illegal business practices, the record contained no evidence that the owner acted with retaliatory motive. The appellate court concluded Rosales failed to show that her termination was retaliatory.
The appellate court also addressed Rosales’s claim that the notice of termination was defective. The appellate court held that because Rosales was not a lawful tenant after termination of her employment, she was not entitled to tenant notice protections.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment and awarded costs to the owner.
De Paolo v. Rosales (2025) 118 Cal.App.5th Supp. 1.
Note: When an employee’s right to live in housing exists solely because of employment (e.g., a resident manager or on-site employee), that right ends when the employment ends. A terminated employee who remains in the unit is not treated as a protected “tenant” under the Tenant Protection Act (“TPA”). Instead, the individual is considered at most a tenant at sufferance or licensee and does not receive TPA just-cause or notice protections.