The Takeaway in the Matter of Eshagian v. Cepeda: 3-Day Notice Requirements

The Takeaway in the Matter of Eshagian v. Cepeda: 3-Day Notice Requirements

By Nate Bernstein, Esq., Managing Attorney of LA Real Estate Law Group

"The days of the sloppy, imprecise, and inaccurate the 3-Day “Notice to Pay Rent or Quit” are over. Courts today are scrutinizing your 3-Day Notices for compliance with Cal. CCP Section 1161(2) very closely in light of the published appellate opinion in “Eshagian v. Cepeda.” So please double check the information in your 3-Day notice for factual and numerical accuracy, and that it contains all the required language based on California law.

You can review a copy of the opinion in Eshagian v. Cepeda at https://courts.ca.gov/opinion/published/2025-06-26/b340941. Landlord groups and associations attempted to have this opinion "DEPUBLISHED" but the California Supreme Court just recently denied the petition to depublish. So, trial courts in your local venue will follow the rules contained in this opinion.

The Court held on page 2 of the main opinion that the:

"…three-day notice to pay rent or quit served by the landlord, Joseph Eshagian, pursuant to section 1161, subdivision (2) (section 1161(2)), is invalid for failure to make clear by when and how Cepeda had to pay the rent, and that Cepeda would lose possession of the premises if he did not timely cure the default. Accordingly, Eshagian’s complaint incorporating the three-day notice failed to state a cause of action for unlawful detainer.”

Readers may wish to review pages 25 through 30 of the court’s opinion at https://courts.ca.gov/opinion/published/2025-06-26/b340941, which discusses the requirements for a 3-Day “Notice to Pay Rent or Quit.”

The important rules are as follows:

(i) the 3-Day notice must state that the landlord would repossess the premises if the tenant did not pay rent prior to expiration of the 3-Day notice period, and

(ii) the 3-Day notice must state when the notice period commenced and ended, and must inform the tenant that the 3-Day period excludes weekends and judicial holidays. Apparently, titling the document "3-Day Notice to Pay or Quit" was not sufficiently code-compliant and did not inform the tenant when rent was due or that the tenant would lose possession if they failed to pay within the 3-day period. Additionally, the notice must provide a clear address where rent could be paid, and not merely the unit where the tenant lives.

Our recommendation is to follow the rules set forth in this opinion for all your 3-Day notices so you can defeat a tenant's alleged defense that the notice is not lawful or compliant with California law. This will help you if the tenant files a demurrer, motion for summary judgment, or attempts to raise this defense at trial.

Nate Bernstein, Esq., is the Managing Counsel of LA Real Estate Law Group, and a member of the State Bar of California. His practice concentrates on the areas of complex real estate title litigation, commercial litigation, landlord-tenant law, employment law, and bankruptcy matters. Mr. Bernstein previously served as in-house corporate litigation counsel at Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, and he is a 32-year veteran of Los Angeles real estate and business attorney and trial lawyer. For more information or to schedule a professional consultation, please contact the office at (818) 383-5759, or by email natebernstein44@gmail.com.

[Editor’s Note: The Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles has updated its “3-Day Notices” to comply with the court decision. These updated notices are available in the Forms Library.]