A California court has ruled in favor of a restaurant owner, Piong Bin Hong, in a dispute with his landlord, Universal Shopping Plaza. The court found that the landlord's eviction notice was invalid, as it demanded payment for overdue rent that was more than a year old. This decision affects not only Hong but also sets a precedent for how landlords must handle eviction notices in California.
The case, Universal Shopping Plaza v. Hong, was filed under docket number B348490 in the California Court of Appeal. The ruling was made on September 9, 2026, by Judge Feuer and her colleagues, Presiding Justice Martinez and Justice Stone. The court reversed a previous judgment that had favored Universal Shopping Plaza, which had sought to evict Hong from his restaurant space.
Background
Piong Bin Hong operates the Five Star Restaurant in San Gabriel, California. He entered into a lease agreement with Universal Shopping Plaza on December 19, 2016, for a five-year term starting January 1, 2017. The lease required him to pay a monthly rent of $30,625, which increased by 3 percent each year. After the lease expired in December 2021, Hong continued to rent the space on a month-to-month basis.
In early 2023, Hong did not pay his rent for January, believing he was entitled to a discount due to a prior conversation with a Universal representative. He sent a letter to the landlord stating he would deduct the unpaid January rent from his February payment, which was also short. After these missed payments, Universal served Hong with a three-day notice to pay rent or quit on February 12, 2025, claiming he owed $65,989.
The Ruling
The California Court of Appeal ruled that the three-day notice served by Universal was invalid. The court stated that the notice violated California Code of Civil Procedure section 1161(2), which requires that eviction notices be served within one year of the rent becoming due. The court noted, "The landlord’s interpretation of section 1161(2)’s one-year notice requirement is inconsistent with the Legislature’s intent in creating the summary unlawful detainer procedure to ensure fairness to the parties by preventing a landlord from sitting on its rights."
The court found that Hong had paid his rent for over two years before receiving the three-day notice. The unpaid rent referenced in the notice corresponded to missed payments from January and February 2023, which were more than a year old by the time the notice was served. As a result, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and ordered it to enter a new judgment in favor of Hong.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for both landlords and tenants in California. It reinforces the requirement that landlords must adhere strictly to the notice provisions outlined in the law. Landlords cannot delay action on overdue rent and then use that delay to justify eviction later on. This decision may encourage tenants to contest eviction notices that do not comply with legal requirements, knowing that courts will uphold their rights under the law.
Furthermore, the ruling emphasizes the importance of clear communication between landlords and tenants regarding rent payments and any agreements or modifications to lease terms. It also highlights the need for landlords to act promptly when rent becomes overdue, as waiting too long could jeopardize their ability to evict a tenant.
What's Next
Universal Shopping Plaza may seek to recover the overdue rent through a separate breach of contract lawsuit, as the court's ruling does not prevent them from pursuing this option. However, they will need to do so within the four-year statute of limitations. The outcome of this case may influence future landlord-tenant disputes regarding eviction notices and overdue rent in California.