All the case documents are in Adobe Acrobat format. If you do not have Adobe Acrobat, please click here.
Drouet v. Superior Court
The California Supreme Court ruled that a landlord can withdraw units and evict even if the tenant claims retaliation.
In Drouet v. Superior Court, the Court of Appeal held that tenants may not defend against an Ellis Act unlawful detainer action by claiming it is retaliatory. The Court of Appeal did allow them some ability to sue for money damages after moving out. This will protect the right of property owners to go out of business and screen out phony retaliation claims that most tenants use to force owners to give them large settlements.
In this published opinion of the Appellate Division of the San Francisco Superior Court, the Court ruled that a landowner’s right to go out of the residential rental business under the Ellis Act trumps a tenant’s right to assert a defense of retaliation. The case was certified for transfer by the Court of Appeal and is under submission in that Court.
San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco
This case is a 12-year battle challenging the constitutionality of the City's efforts to force our clients to rent rooms in their small historic hotel to low-income permanent residents, rather than tourists. Ultimately, the City granted a permit allowing tourist use, but imposed a permit condition requiring the payment of $567,000. Thomas and Robert Field, the owners of the San Remo, claim that the fee is extortion and violates the Takings clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The case was argued in the U.S. Supreme Court in March and a decision is expected before June 30, 2005.
To read a transcript of the oral argument in the Supreme Court click here.
To read the Petition for Writ of Certiorari click here.
To read San Remo's Opening Brief on the Merits in the Supreme Court click here.
To read the City's Supreme Court brief click here.
To read San Remo's Reply Brief on the Merits click here.
To read amicus curiae (friend of the Court) briefs filed by
Pacific Legal Foundation and National Association of Realtors - National Association of Home Builders - Washington Legal Foundation and US Chamber of Commerce - Steve Chabot, Chairman on the House Subcommittee on the Constitution - Franklin P. Kottshade - Elizabeth J. Neumont - Equity Lifestyle Properties - Evandro Santini/Santini Homes, Inc. - Defenders Of Property Rights and New England Legal Foundation
To read the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 2004 opinion that is being reviewed by the Supreme Court click here.
To read the Ninth Circuit's first decision in 1998 click here.
The San Remo case has also been in the California state courts. The California Court of Appeal held that the City’s imposition of the $567,000 fee is an unconstitutional Taking in violation of the California Constitution. In December, 2000, the California Supreme Court granted the City’s petition for review and heard arguments on December 6, 2001. For story update, click here.
The California Supreme Court reversed the state court of appeal. By a 4 to 3 vote, the state supreme court held that the City's actions did not violate the state constitution. Justice Brown's dissenting opinion can be found beginning on page 39. To read that opinion click here.
Tom v. CCSF
The Court of Appeal affirmed a lower court ruling that a local San Francisco ordinance, seeking to discourage persons from acquiring private residential property using tenants in common (TIC) agreements, violated the constitutional rights of privacy and equal protection guaranteed by the California Constitution
Alice Ching, et al., v. San Francisco Board of Permit Appeals
In this case, our client convinced the City’s Board of Appeals to consider their zoning application to be deemed approved because the City Planning Commission failed to act on the application within the time frame required by state law. A group of tenants sued the Board of Appeals claiming that an individual on the Board of Appeals should not have voted because he had a conflict of interest. The trial court agreed with the tenants, but the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the tenants suit was filed too late under the applicable statute of limitations.
Balestreri v. Rosenthal
In an unpublished opinion Balistreri v. Rosenthal, the Court of Appeal held that the statute of limitations for filing a wrongful eviction lawsuit, based on a defective termination notice, runs from receipt of the notice. In Balistreri, the landlord served a termination notice on his tenants stating that he wished to do an owner move-in eviction ("OMI") and offered to switch apartments. The notice was an informal letter that failed to comply with the Rent Ordinance. Approximately eight months later, the landlord abandoned the owner move-in after his remodel permits were denied. Even though the tenant did not learn about the abandoned OMI until more than a year after receiving the notice (he also spent more than a year in prison on a drug charge), the Court of Appeal held that because he had a rent ordinance claim when he received the defective notice (and thus could not have been forced to move), it did not matter when the tenant learned that the owner decided not to move in.
Broustis v. Drouet
The Court of Appeal finds Tenant's lawsuit subject to review under anti-SLAPP statute.
Camacho v. Mellett
This case arises out of a landlord-tenant dispute. The landlord took several actions aimed at evicting the tenants, including filing and then dismissing an unlawful detainer action. The tenants sued, alleging that the landlord’s conduct violated his agreement to waive rent as partial consideration for a buyout of the end portion of their lease term. The landlord filed a motion to strike the complaint. The trial court denied the motion in its entirety. On the landlord’s appeal, the court concluded that the landlord met his initial burden of establishing that the tenants’ suit arose out of protected activity.
The court has issued a small, but important, change in the Camacho v. Mellett judgment.
Frye v Tenderloin Housing Clinic
California Supreme Court affirms nonprofit groups' rights to practice law without registering, but told the State Bar to conduct a study to determine whether such groups imperil clients and, if so, whether registration could solve the problem.
State Bar’s 44 page report of August 20, 2007 states that while there is "not a compelling need" for the state's hundreds of nonprofits that do legal work to register as "public benefit professional law corporations," doing so could be a plus and it might still be in their best interests to register with the State Bar.
The report stems from the California Supreme Court's ruling above-mentioned in Frye v. Tenderloin Housing Clinic, 38 Cal.4th 23. The Bar recommendation is exactly what our firm said the court should have said in the case and demonstrates it effectively agrees with us that nonprofits need to be regulated by the State Bar.
California's First District Court of Appeal rules that nonprofit corporations cannot provide legal services unless registered with the State Bar.
Hampton v. Schiappacasse
Court of Appeal tosses out Tenant's lawsuit against Landlord under anti-Slapp statute.
Lambert v. City and County of San Francisco
This United States Supreme Court decision is an extremely rare dissent from denial of a petition for writ of certiorari. Justice Scalia, with Justices Thomas and Kennedy concurring, objected to the full Supreme Court’s refusal to review this case which was another constitutional challenge to San Francisco’s Residential Hotel Unit Conversion and Demolition Ordinance. Our office represented the Lamberts before the City’s administrative tribunals and in the trial court and represented amicus curiae in the appellate courts.
Reidy v. City and County of San Francisco
State Court of Appeal ruled that owners of residential hotels have a right to convert them to nonrental housing or demolish them, despite a city ordinance that requires replacement of the lost housing.
Sites v. Superior Court
In this recent published decision of the California Court of Appeal, our client successfully resisted his former tenants' efforts to obtain extraordinary appellate review of an eviction judgment after the owner had succeeded at trial and in the appellate department of the Superior Court. This procedural victory forecloses future efforts by tenants to forestall their evictions using the delays of the appellate process.
Tenderloin Housing Clinic Inc. v. Astoria Hotel Inc.
We successfully represented the Astoria hotel, which was sued by the Tenderloin Housing Clinic for violating the City Planning Code and Residential Hotel Unit Conversion and Demolition Ordinance in conjunction with the conversion of rooms from residential to tourist use. A trial judge ruled against our client and issued an injunction prohibiting all tourist use of their hotel. On appeal, the Court reversed the trial judge and declared that the hotel owners had the right to rent a significant number of their rooms to tourists.
Tenderloin Housing Clinic, Inc. v. Bhazubahi C. Patel
This case is an unpublished decision of the California Court OF Appeal holding that the state Ellis Act preempts and supercedes San Francisco’s Residential Hotel Unit Conversion and Demolition Ordinance.
Zavarzin v. City and County of San Francisco
This case is another unpublished decision of the California Court of Appeal holding that the state Ellis Act preempts and supercedes San Francisco’s Residential Hotel Unit Conversion and Demolition Ordinance. Our client Mr. Zavarzin successfully sued San Francisco and forced the City to allow him to convert a 22 room residential hotel to a single-family home.
Johnson v City and County of San Francisco
The Court of Appeal of the State of California overturned the San Francisco ordinance that required landlords who were getting out of the rental business to estimate to their tenants how much money they would be paid for relocation assistance. Read the Court's opinion by clicking here.
Pieri v City and County of San Francisco
The City and County of San Francisco appealed after the trial court granted the petition for writ of mandate of Jackie Pieri, Lavinia Turner, and Small Property Owners of San Francisco, concluding the City’s relocation assistance ordinance on its face violated the Ellis Act . The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court decision. Read the Court's opinion by clicking here. Read the Petition for Review by clicking here.
DeLaura v Beckett
DeLaura appealed from a judgment dismissing her first amended complaint for declaratory relief against her tenant, James Beckett. The Court concluded that the demurrer was properly sustained because the applicability of certain provisions of the San Francisco Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance (rent ordinance) to Beckett’s tenancy is more appropriately resolved through an administrative hearing before the San Francisco Rent Board. Read the Court's opinion by clicking here.
