# Munguia-Brown v. Equity Residential

> District Court, N.D. California · April 8, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10078678

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** April 8, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10078678

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9 JAVANNI MUNGUIA-BROWN, et al., Case No. 16-cv-01225-JSW

10 Plaintiffs,
ORDER RE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF,
11 v. FINAL DAMAGES AMOUNT, AND
ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
12 EQUITY RESIDENTIAL, et al.,

Defendants.
13

14
15 By entry of its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (“Findings”), the Court has
16 determined that the Standard Late Fee provision in Equity’s residential lease in California is null
17 and void. Before the Court enters final judgment, however, the parties must further brief, or
18 stipulate to, a couple of issues. The Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to brief or stipulate to the issues
19 that follow, by no later than May 3, 2024. Equity may file a response by no later than May 24,
20 2024, taking into account the findings of fact and conclusions of law made in the Court’s
21 Findings. Plaintiffs’ reply shall be due no later than June 7, 2024.
22 First, the Plaintiffs seek an injunctive relief that (1) permanently precludes Equity from
23 charging or collecting the Standard Late Fee; (2) permanently precludes Equity from including the
24 Standard Late Fee or any percentage-based late fee in any future leases; and (3) for three years
25 following judgment limits the amount of any late fee that Equity may charge during this period to
26 a reasonable amounts based on this Court’s findings regarding Equity’s actual damages
27 proximately caused by late rent, based on the evidence presented at trial.
1 [they] have suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary
2 || damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of
3 hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the
4 || public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.” eBay Inc. vy. MercExchange,
5 LLC, 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006).
6
7 The Court finds that the factors for issuance of an injunction have not been fully briefed,
8 including the amount that Equity may charge instead of the $50 or 5 percent of the outstanding
9 rent.
10
11 Second, the Court requires that Plaintiff proffer the final judgment amount. This number

qa 12 shall not include the late-added $815,000 or prejudgment interest. This number must be updated

13 to include post-trial numbers. In performing these calculations, the parties must use Mr.

Breshears’ methods for calculating total late fee charges and payments. In calculating Equity’s
15
offset damages, the parties are instructed that this number is limited to a portion of their claimed

16

employee costs, as determined utilizing Mr. Schwarz’s multiple regression analysis, and Equity’s

18 lost use of funds figures must be determined utilizing Mr. Breshears’ methodology.
19
20 IT IS SO ORDERED. a)
21 |! Dated: April 8, 2024 ( | 4 ( tt
22 \ ! APS i
3 /JEFPRIEY S; WHATE
/ Unite//States Dystrict Judge
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10078678. Public record. Not legal advice.