Case Background
Levi Estates, LLC brought an unlawful detainer action against Kassahun Nigusa and Iman El Gaddari. The case was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Stanley Mosk Courthouse. The dispute concerned a residential property at 3341 Country Club Drive in Los Angeles.
The parties entered a one-year residential rental agreement dated October 10, 2024. The agreement named Nigusa and El Gaddari as the tenants. The agreement provided for a $9,000 monthly rent. Rent was payable in advance on the first day of each month. The lease also required a $9,000 security deposit.
The term began November 1, 2024. The fixed term ended October 31, 2025. The contract also addressed possession, rent obligations, and termination.
Cause
Levi Estates alleged that the Defendants failed to pay rent. The three-day notice demanded eight monthly payments. Those payments covered July 2025 through February 2026. Each month carried a $9,000 charge. The notice therefore demanded $72,000.
The notice dated February 18, 2026, required the tenants to pay the demanded rent or surrender possession. It also declared a forfeiture of the lease. Levi Estates identified Eli Levi as the person to whom rent should be paid.
The complaint alleged that the Defendants failed to comply with the notice. It also alleged that the notice included an election of forfeiture. The complaint sought possession based on expiration of the fixed-term lease.
Injury
Levi Estates sought monetary recovery tied to the unpaid rent and the property's rental value during the holdover period. The complaint identified a $300 daily fair rental value.
Damages
Levi Estates sought $72,000 in unpaid rent through the three-day notice. The amount represented eight monthly installments of $9,000. The covered period ran from July 1, 2025, through February 1, 2026.
The Plaintiff also sought holdover damages for the Defendants' continued possession after the notice period. The complaint alleged the property's fair rental value at $300 per day as the basis for holdover recovery.
Levi Estates further sought restitution and possession of the property. The Plaintiff also sought attorney fees and costs under the written rental agreement.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Levi Estates, LLC
Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Christie Gaumer | Avraham Sinai
A Substitution of Attorney filed on May 12, 2026, replaced Christie Gaumer with Avraham Sinai as counsel for the Plaintiff.
Defendant(s): Kassahun Nigusa | Iman El Gaddari
Counsel for Defendant(s): The answer identified Kassahun Nigusa and Iman El Gaddari as acting self-represented. The August 20, 2026, Court order confirmed that the Defendants proceeded at trial without counsel.
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
Levi Estates, LLC claimed that Kassahun Nigusa and Iman El Gaddari violated their residential lease by failing to pay rent. The lease required monthly rent of $9,000.
The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants failed to pay rent due from July 1, 2025, through February 1, 2026.
Levi Estates alleged that it served the Defendants with a three-day notice to pay rent or quit. The Plaintiff claimed the Defendants failed to satisfy the notice within the required period.
The Plaintiff also alleged that the lease had expired. It sought possession based on the expiration of the fixed-term tenancy.
Levi Estates further sought damages for the Defendants' continued possession. The complaint identified the property's fair rental value as $300 per day.
The Plaintiff also sought attorney fees and costs under the written rental agreement. It alleged compliance with the Los Angeles Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance requirements.
Defense
The Defendants disputed several allegations and raised numerous defenses. Their answer asserted a breach of the warranty of habitability. They also challenged the notice and raised local Los Angeles tenant protections.
Their attached defenses challenged the validity of the three-day notice. They questioned the amount demanded and the notice's sufficiency. They also disputed service of the notice.
The Defendants raised issues involving the Los Angeles Just Cause Ordinance. They also asserted defenses involving alleged retaliation, harassment, and other Los Angeles housing protections. They sought reinstatement of the tenancy or relief from forfeiture.
Jury Verdict
On June 18, 2026, a 12-person jury returned its verdict in favor of Plaintiff Levi Estates, LLC. The jury found that Kassahun Nigusa and Iman El Gaddari failed to make at least one rental payment required by their lease.
The jury also found that Levi Estates properly gave the Defendants written notice to pay rent or vacate the property. It determined that the amount demanded in the notice did not exceed the amount the Defendants owed.
The jury further found that the Defendants did not pay the amount stated in the notice within three days. It then determined the amount of unpaid rent and holdover damages.
The jury awarded $72,000 in past-due rent and $33,000 in holdover damages.
Following the verdict, the judgment awarded Levi Estates restitution and possession of the property at 3341 Country Club Drive, Los Angeles. The Court also declared the lease or rental agreement forfeited.
The judgment further provided that Levi Estates could recover applicable fees and costs through a motion or memorandum.
Post-trial Motions
The Court entered the original judgment on June 22, 2026. It entered an amended judgment on July 6, 2026. The amendment corrected the property's address and did not change the verdict or damages.
The Defendants filed a Notice of Appeal on June 24, 2026. The Plaintiff's opposition stated that the appeal remained pending. However, the Court noted that it was unable to locate a pending appellate case under this case number or with these Defendants as parties.
The Defendants also moved to vacate the judgment and requested a new trial. They argued that the Court required them to proceed without adequately prepared counsel. They also challenged notice service and raised a claimed statutory exemption.
On August 20, 2026, Judge Thomas D. Long denied the motion for a new trial. The Court considered the Defendants' arguments on their merits. It concluded that the Defendants had not shown an error from proceeding while self-represented.
The same August 20 order also denied a third-party claim of right to possession. The Court directed the levying officer to proceed with the writ of possession within five days.
Court Documents:
Documents are available for purchase upon request at [email protected]