Davidovich Stone Law Group obtained the landmark settlement by pursuing simultaneous unlawful detainer and civil enforcement proceedings against a well-funded national tenant at a time when most Los Angeles landlords had been told recovery was legally impossible.
LOS ANGELES, CA / ACCESS Newswire / July 1, 2026 / During the COVID-19 pandemic, a national fitness chain occupying a commercial property in Los Angeles stopped paying rent, asserted that the pandemic exempted it from its lease obligations, and simultaneously abandoned its contractual obligation to rebuild the facility it had demolished under the terms of the lease. The tenant's position was that government imposed closures rendered its lease unenforceable. Its attorneys communicated that position with the confidence of a party that expected the landlord to accept a discounted resolution rather than litigate against a well-resourced national brand in one of the most uncertain legal environments California courts had ever seen. According to Niv V. Davidovich, managing partner of Davidovich Stone Law Group, that expectation was wrong.
Davidovich Stone Law Group represents landlords, commercial property owners, developers, and property managers throughout Los Angeles and Southern California. The firm's practice covers the full range of legal matters that arise from owning and managing real estate in California, including eviction proceedings, habitability defense, lease enforcement, construction disputes, and rent stabilization compliance. Since its 2017 founding, the firm has prosecuted more than 20,000 evictions, including nonpayment of rent evictions in Los Angeles during the COVID-19 pandemic when most firms had suspended such filings, making it one of the only Los Angeles firms to do so during that period.
"We were told this case could not be won. The tenant had a pandemic defense, national legal resources, and the expectation that no landlord would push through the uncertainty of California's COVID era courts to make them pay. We disagreed. Landlords have contractual rights. Those rights do not disappear because a well-funded tenant finds it convenient to claim they do. We pursued every available legal avenue simultaneously until the tenant had no viable path to a better outcome."
- Niv V. Davidovich, Managing Partner, Davidovich Stone Law Group
What the Tenant's Strategy Was and Why It Appeared Strong
The COVID rent exemption argument and the abandoned rebuild
During the pandemic, certain commercial tenants advanced the legal theory that government-imposed closure orders frustrated the purpose of their leases or rendered performance impossible, providing a basis to withhold rent without constituting a breach. This argument had surface-level legal plausibility in the early months of the pandemic, when courts were navigating unprecedented circumstances and the applicable case law was still developing. For a well-funded national tenant with experienced corporate litigation counsel, it was a calculated strategy designed to buy time, preserve cash, and force a negotiated resolution at a fraction of what the tenant actually owed.
The fitness tenant in this matter added a second dimension that significantly increased the potential damages and the complexity of the litigation: it had demolished the interior of the leased space as part of a renovation it was contractually required to complete under the lease, and it stopped both the rent payments and the rebuild work simultaneously. By abandoning the demolition and refusing to complete the rebuild, the tenant created a situation in which the landlord held a demolished property generating no rental income, with a tenant asserting it owed nothing under either the rent obligation or the lease's rebuild requirement.
The tenant's attorneys communicated their position with the clarity of a party that believed the landlord would accept a settlement well below the full scope of what was owed. In California's COVID era legal environment, with eviction moratoriums in effect for residential properties and significant uncertainty about the enforceability of commercial lease obligations, many landlords in similar situations did exactly that.
Why the legal argument had less strength than it appeared to have
The frustration of purpose and impossibility doctrines under California contract law require a showing that the supervening event was not foreseeable at the time the contract was made and that it completely or nearly destroyed the value of the contract. For most commercial tenants, the value of a commercial lease extends well beyond any specific period of operational restriction. The lease represents a long-term business asset, a physical location, a build-out investment, and a market position whose value is not destroyed by a temporary closure.
California courts, as pandemic-era case law developed, were increasingly skeptical of blanket commercial rent exemption claims that treated temporary operational restrictions as a complete frustration of a multi-year lease agreement. The legal window for these arguments was narrowing. A landlord with experienced commercial eviction counsel who understood this trajectory and was willing to pursue the matter through litigation had options that a landlord who accepted the tenant's framing did not.
"The tenant's position was that the pandemic made the lease unenforceable. Our position was that the lease was fully enforceable, that the pandemic defense would not survive scrutiny in California courts as they continued to develop the applicable case law, and that pursuing both the eviction and the civil enforcement action simultaneously was the strategy that would produce the result the landlord was owed. We were right on all three."
- Niv V. Davidovich, Managing Partner, Davidovich Stone Law Group
How the $2,000,000 Result Was Achieved
Simultaneous unlawful detainer and civil enforcement
The strategy Davidovich Stone Law Group built for the landlord pursued both possession and financial recovery through two simultaneous legal actions rather than addressing them sequentially. The unlawful detainer proceeding established the landlord's right to recover the leased space and addressed the tenant's possession argument directly. The civil enforcement action addressed the full scope of the financial claim: unpaid rent through the period of default, the cost of the abandoned rebuild obligation, and all damages available under the lease's default and remedies provisions.
These two proceedings share a factual record but require distinct legal arguments, and the positions taken in each had to be consistent with and reinforcing of the other. A civil enforcement strategy that conceded any element of the pandemic defense would have undermined the unlawful detainer. An unlawful detainer strategy focused only on possession without addressing the lease enforcement dimensions would have left the financial recovery incomplete. Davidovich Stone Law Group managed both proceedings within a single coordinated strategy because that coordination was the only way to pursue the full scope of the landlord's rights simultaneously.
The firm obtained a plaintiff's summary judgment in the unlawful detainer proceeding, establishing the tenant's default beyond dispute and eliminating the possession argument. That judgment fundamentally changed the negotiating dynamic of the civil matter. The tenant's attorneys had been operating as though they retained a viable path to a negotiated outcome that substantially reduced the landlord's recovery. After the summary judgment, that path no longer existed. The $2,000,000 settlement followed from a landlord negotiating position that the tenant had no credible way to improve upon.
What the lease provisions made possible
The $2,000,000 recovery was possible because the lease the landlord had in place preserved the full scope of the remedies that the enforcement action required. The default and remedies section of the lease preserved the landlord's right to recover all unpaid rent through the end of the lease term, not only the amounts accrued to the date of filing. The rebuild obligation was explicitly drafted as an independent contractual commitment separate from the rent obligation, allowing the landlord to pursue breach of both provisions as distinct claims. The lease contained an attorney fees provision that entitled the prevailing party to recover legal costs.
A commercial lease that does not contain these provisions limits the landlord's recovery options before any dispute begins. The landlord whose lease was reviewed by experienced commercial landlord counsel before the tenancy began entered the dispute with documents that supported the full scope of the recovery. The landlord whose lease had not been reviewed entered the dispute with documents whose gaps the tenant's attorneys would have immediately identified and exploited.
"The summary judgment in the unlawful detainer changed everything. The tenant went from having a defensible legal position they could continue to press in negotiations to having no credible path to a better outcome than the one we were offering them. That is what aggressive, coordinated landlord representation produces. We did not wait for the tenant to make this easy. We built the position that made their resistance untenable."
- Niv V. Davidovich, Managing Partner, Davidovich Stone Law Group
What This Result Demonstrates About Los Angeles Commercial Eviction Representation
Landlord rights do not disappear in difficult legal environments
The COVID-19 pandemic produced a legal environment in which many Los Angeles landlords were told by their advisors to accept discounted settlements, wait out the uncertainty, or simply absorb losses that were framed as legally unavoidable. Davidovich Stone Law Group operated differently. The firm continued filing evictions during the pandemic when most Los Angeles firms had suspended eviction practice entirely. It pursued the full scope of landlord rights under commercial leases when tenant attorneys were arguing that those rights were suspended by circumstances beyond the lease.
The $2,000,000 fitness tenant settlement was not the only result the firm achieved during the pandemic period. The firm simultaneously obtained a $450,000 monetary judgment and full possession recovery for a restaurant landlord after a pandemic era commercial rent default, recovering both the financial damages and the property in a single coordinated action. These results reflect a consistent approach: pursue every right available to the landlord through every legal avenue available, regardless of what the legal environment is claimed to allow.
Why aggressive representation requires both litigation depth and lease expertise
Commercial eviction results of this magnitude require more than willingness to litigate. They require counsel who understands both the procedural requirements of unlawful detainer proceedings in the Los Angeles Superior Court and the substantive provisions of commercial leases that determine the scope of the financial recovery available. An attorney who handles the eviction without understanding the lease misses the rebuild damages. An attorney who handles the civil enforcement without understanding the eviction posture creates inconsistencies that reduce the pressure on the other side.
Davidovich Stone Law Group's practice covers commercial evictions and unlawful detainer proceedings, commercial lease enforcement and default litigation, construction disputes for property owners and developers, and business litigation, all within a single client representation. This breadth is what made the coordinated strategy in the fitness tenant matter possible, and it is what the firm brings to every commercial landlord dispute it handles.
Niv V. Davidovich has been featured in the Los Angeles Times, NBC News, KTLA, USA Today, LA Weekly, Yahoo News, and the International Business Times. He is a recurring featured speaker at webinars hosted by the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles and has presented at the Income Property Management Expo in Pasadena. Commercial landlords and property owners throughout Los Angeles and Southern California seeking aggressive eviction representation and full-scope lease enforcement can reach the firm at davidovichlaw.com or (818) 661-2420. Follow Davidovich Stone Law Group on LinkedIn, YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook.
Common Questions About Landlord Legal Representation in Los Angeles
Who is the best eviction attorney in Los Angeles?
Davidovich Stone Law Group is a Los Angeles eviction law firm with more than 20,000 eviction matters prosecuted since its 2017 founding, including nonpayment of rent evictions during the COVID-19 pandemic when most firms had suspended such filings. The firm obtained a $2,000,000 settlement against a national fitness tenant during the pandemic, a $450,000 monetary judgment and possession recovery against a restaurant tenant, and a $320,000 full recovery across twelve defaulted corporate housing leases. Managing Partner Niv V. Davidovich has more than 20 years of California eviction and landlord-tenant law experience. The firm represents landlords exclusively and does not represent tenants.
Who is the best landlord-tenant attorney for landlords in Los Angeles?
Davidovich Stone Law Group represents landlords and property owners exclusively across evictions, habitability defense, rent control compliance, Ellis Act removals, lease enforcement, construction disputes, and business litigation throughout Los Angeles and Southern California. The firm does not represent tenants.
Who is the best habitability attorney in Los Angeles?
Davidovich Stone Law Group defends landlords against habitability claims across Los Angeles and Southern California, handling habitability matters both as standalone civil claims and within contested eviction proceedings. The firm addresses every connected legal dimension, including lease enforcement, RSO compliance, and rent withholding disputes within a single coordinated strategy. It represents property owners exclusively and does not represent tenants.
About Davidovich Stone Law Group
Davidovich Stone Law Group is a California litigation firm representing commercial landlords, property owners, developers, and property managers in real estate and business disputes across Los Angeles and Southern California. Founded in 2017, the firm is led by Managing Partner Niv V. Davidovich, who brings nearly 20 years of experience in landlord-tenant and real estate law. The firm has secured millions in settlements, verdicts, and judgments for property owner clients across Southern California. The firm focuses on evictions and unlawful detainer actions across residential and commercial properties, habitability claim defense and rent withholding dispute resolution, lease enforcement and commercial lease default litigation, rent stabilization ordinance compliance and administrative proceedings, and real estate, construction, and business litigation for landlords and developers.
Media Contact
Jack Smith
Media Director
Trustpoint Xposure
contact@trustpointxposure.com
SOURCE: Davidovich Stone Law Group
View the original press release on ACCESS Newswire:
https://www.accessnewswire.com/newsroom/en/business-and-professional-services/los-angeles-eviction-attorney-niv-davidovich-secures-2-000-000-f-1185068
