Renick, et al. v. Sundance Group, LLC, et al.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 28, 2026
WILDFIRE-DISPLACED FAMILY FILES FIRST PRIVATE RENT-GOUGING LAWSUIT
AGAINST GLASSELL PARK LANDLORDS
Suit Filed as LA County Wildfire Price-Gouging Protections Expire
and Southern California Enters Another Fire Seaso
LOS ANGELES, CA — A family displaced from their Altadena home by the January 2025 Eaton Fire filed a civil lawsuit today against the landlords who charged them nearly three times the maximum rent permitted under California’s and Los Angeles’ rent-gouging laws—and who continued to collect the unlawful rent for nearly ten months after receiving written notice from both the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office and the County of Los Angeles that their conduct was illegal. The lawsuit, Renick, et al. v. Sundance Group, LLC, et al., filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, is the first private civil action brought by a wildfire-displaced family to enforce the rental price-gouging protections of California Penal Code § 396 and Los Angeles Municipal Code § 47.12.
Plaintiffs Randall and Candy Renick had lived in their Altadena home for eighteen years when the Eaton Fire forced them to evacuate on the night of January 7, 2025. They fled with their dogs and what they could fit in their car. Their home, badly contaminated by smoke, was rendered unsafe to inhabit and required extensive remediation.
Searching online for long-term temporary housing, the Renicks found a Zillow listing for a three-bedroom home at 3731 Toland Way in Glassell Park, owned by Defendants Terrence and Catalina Chow through a trust. The Property was first listed for rent on January 16, 2025—nine days after the Eaton Fire began—and the Renicks moved in on January 26. The State’s price-gouging law, California Penal Code § 396, limited the lawful monthly rent for the Property to $5,032.50, but the Chows charged the Renicks $14,938.50 per month—nearly three times the lawful maximum. Over the course of the tenancy, the Chows collected $95,758 in unlawful overcharges from the Renicks.
On February 13, 2025, less than three weeks into the tenancy, the Renicks received a Notice of Potential Violation of California Penal Code Section 396(e) sent by the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office to the Chows. The notice demanded that the Chows immediately reduce the rent and refund the overcharge with 10 percent interest. Mr. Renick sent a photograph of the letter to the Chows, but they took no action in response.
A second notice followed from the County of Los Angeles. The Chows ignored this second notice as well. They did not reduce the rent. They did not refund a single dollar. They continued to collect $14,938.50 per month from the Renicks through the end of the tenancy on November 15, 2025. The Renicks’ lawsuit seeks restitution of the unlawful overcharges, compensatory damages, civil penalties of up to $30,000 per violation, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
“We were just trying to find somewhere safe to live while we figured out what came next,” said Plaintiff Candy Renick. “Instead, we ended up being overcharged almost $10,000 every month—and our landlords wouldn’t stop even after the City told them to.”
The filing of this suit comes one day before Los Angeles County’s wildfire-related price-gouging protections are set to expire on May 29, 2026, after the Board of Supervisors declined to extend them at its May 19 meeting. The expiration arrives as Southern California enters another wildfire season after the Palisades and Eaton Fires destroyed more than 16,000 structures and displaced more than 100,000 Angelenos in January 2025. As of early March 2026, only 13 of the approximately 13,000 homes destroyed in the fires had been rebuilt.
Since the wildfires ignited, The Rent Brigade has fought to keep price-gouging protections in place to prevent landlords and speculators from exploiting displaced families. But those protections have meant little without enforcement—and enforcement has been almost nonexistent.
“Tenants should never have been put in the position of having to enforce disaster protections themselves,” said Chelsea Kirk of The Rent Brigade. “After thousands of reports and virtually no meaningful action from the City Attorney or County and State agencies, people have realized they can’t rely on government enforcement to protect them from exploitation.”
“Wildfire season is here again, and when the next fire hits, families will again be displaced, they will need housing, and they will be at their most vulnerable,” said Josh Nuni, an attorney at The People’s Law Project: Los Angeles, A.P.C., representing the Renicks. “The State and the City’s price-gouging laws exist because we know people will be taken advantage of without them. This case is about making sure those laws are more than just words on a page.”
####