california rental-property rent
Is a California tenant required to continue paying rent during the move-out notification period when landlord has found a new tenant?
<p>My brother gave the required 60 day notice that he was moving out of an apartment.  Two weeks after giving notice, he had vacated the unit.  The landlord has found a new tenant, but won't allow the new tenant to move into the unit until the end of the 60 day period, thus requiring my brother to continue paying rent.</p>
<p>Generally, the law and court precedent favors financial efficiency over inefficiency.  If the landlord has a new tenant who wants to take possession, don't they have a duty to mitigate my brother's lease obligations?</p>
<p>Is there California law that addresses this situation?</p>

<blockquote>
<p>If the landlord has a new tenant who wants to take possession, don't they have a duty to mitigate my brother's lease obligations? Is there California law that addresses this situation?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes, the doctrine of mitigation of damages. See <a href="https://www.leagle.com/decision/1994171226calapp4th168611621" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Valle de Oro Bank v. Gamboa</em>, 26 Cal.App.4th 1686, 1691 (1994)</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The doctrine of mitigation of damages holds that &quot;[a] plaintiff who
suffers damage as a result of either a breach of contract or a tort
has a duty to take reasonable steps to mitigate those damages and will
not be able to recover for any losses which could have been thus
avoided.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The application of this doctrine in landlord-tenant disputes is also palpable in <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&amp;sectionNum=1951.2." rel="nofollow noreferrer">CA Civil Code §1951.2</a>(a). The statutory language is needlessly convoluted, but <a href="https://www.leagle.com/decision/1983308144calapp3d1641295" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Danner v. Jarrett</em>, 144 Cal.App.3d 164, 166-7 (1983)</a> points out that &quot;<em>section 1951.2 [...] encourages the lessor to mitigate damages [...]. Its formula for damages permits the lessee to prove what rental loss could have been avoided</em>&quot; (citations omitted).</p>
<p>Consistent with the previous statement, <a href="https://www.leagle.com/decision/incaco20131126033" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Powerhouse Motorsports Group, Inc. v. Yamaha Motor Corp., USA</em>, 221 Cal.App.4th 867, 884 (2013)</a> mentions that &quot;<em>[t]he burden of proving a plaintiff failed to mitigate damages [...] is on the defendant</em>&quot;.</p>
