234 Cal. App. 4th 275
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Tenant Travis Wade rented a converted recreation room in Los Angeles and was ordered evicted after the unit was deemed an illegal rental.
- The City’s relocation contractor (Paragon) initially determined Wade qualified as a “qualified tenant” and awarded $18,300 relocation assistance based on disability.
- The landlord appealed; an LAHD hearing officer found Wade was the sole occupant, did not require in-home special care, and was not a “qualified tenant,” awarding the standard $9,650 payment.
- Wade sought administrative mandamus and traditional mandamus in superior court, arguing a single-person household can be a “head of household” under Health & Safety Code § 50072 and thus qualify for the enhanced payment under LAMC § 151.09.G and § 151.02.
- The superior court agreed with Wade, ordering the City to reinterpret § 50072 to allow a household-of-one to be a “head of household;” the City sought appellate review.
- The appellate court treated the nonfinal appeal as a writ petition and held that under the plain language of § 50072 a single person with an orthopedic mobility impairment is not a “handicapped” person for purposes of the statute, and thus not a “qualified tenant” under the LAMC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a single-person tenant with an orthopedic disability qualifies as "handicapped" under Cal. Health & Safety Code § 50072 and thus as a "qualified tenant" under LAMC § 151.02 for enhanced relocation assistance. | Wade: § 50072 does not require multiple occupants; a household can be one person and that person can be the head of household, so he qualifies. | City: § 50072 distinguishes a “family in which the head of household” (orthopedic disability) from a single person; a single person with an orthopedic disability is not covered. | Court: § 50072’s plain language treats orthopedic disability as qualifying only when the head of a family household is affected; a single person is not covered for orthopedic disability and thus not a "qualified tenant." |
Key Cases Cited
- Conservatorship of Whitley, 50 Cal.4th 1206 (2010) (statutory interpretation principles and de novo review of legal questions)
- Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity, 19 Cal.4th 1106 (1999) (different words in same statute presumed to have different meanings)
- Rojas v. Superior Court, 33 Cal.4th 407 (2004) (legislature’s clear drafting choices inform statutory interpretation)
- McCarther v. Pacific Telesis Group, 48 Cal.4th 104 (2010) (avoidance of surplusage in statutory construction)
- Olson v. Cory, 35 Cal.3d 390 (1983) (appellate court may treat nonfinal appeal as writ petition where appropriate)