Danger Panda, LLC v. Launiu
10 Cal. App. 5th 502
Cal. Ct. App.2017Background
- Danger Panda, LLC served an Ellis Act withdrawal notice for a San Francisco rental building and paid relocation assistance under San Francisco Rent Ordinance § 37.9A(e)(3) to occupants of Unit 308A.
- Unit 308A was occupied under a 1971 lease in the name of Nancy; her adult son Donn, his wife Olga, and their minor son David also lived in the unit.
- Plaintiff delivered checks allocating the maximum required relocation amount among the three adult occupants but did not issue a separate check to the minor David.
- Defendants moved to quash service of the unlawful detainer, arguing the landlord failed to tender a separate relocation payment to David as a "tenant" under § 37.9A(e)(3)(A).
- Trial court granted the motion to quash; an appellate panel affirmed, holding the minor was a tenant entitled to a separate payment. The Court of Appeal accepted transfer to decide whether a minor displaced by an Ellis Act eviction is a "tenant" entitled to a § 37.9A(e) relocation payment.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the appellate panel: a minor who cannot independently contract for or assume rent obligations is not a "tenant" for purposes of the Ellis Act relocation-payment provision and is not entitled to a separate § 37.9A(e) payment as currently written.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a minor occupant (David) is a "tenant" entitled to a separate Ellis Act relocation payment under San Francisco Rent Ordinance § 37.9A(e)(3) | Plaintiff: Paid the correct total relocation amount to the unit and properly allocated it among adult tenants; a minor cannot contract so need not receive a separate check | Defendants: David is a lawful occupant identified in the notice and therefore a "tenant" entitled to his own relocation payment | Court: A minor lacks capacity to obtain exclusive tenancy rights or incur rent obligations; under § 37.2(t) and the Ordinance as a whole a minor occupant is not a tenant for § 37.9A(e) purposes; no separate payment required to minor |
Key Cases Cited
- Nash v. City of Santa Monica, 37 Cal.3d 97 (Cal. 1984) (upheld ordinance requiring permit to remove rental units; impetus for the Ellis Act)
- Johnson v. City and County of San Francisco, 137 Cal.App.4th 7 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (discusses interaction of Ellis Act and local mitigation authority)
- Pieri v. City and County of San Francisco, 137 Cal.App.4th 886 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (upheld local relocation assistance requirements under authority preserved by Ellis Act)
- Parkmerced Co. v. San Francisco Rent Stabilization & Arbitration Bd., 215 Cal.App.3d 490 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) (lawful occupancy with landlord consent can create tenant protections absent formal lease)
- Mosser Companies v. San Francisco Rent Stabilization & Arbitration Bd., 233 Cal.App.4th 505 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (construed "occupant" and "possession" under Costa-Hawkins; adult original occupants can inherit tenancy rights)
- T & A Drolapas & Sons, LP v. San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization & Arbitration Bd., 238 Cal.App.4th 646 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (applies Mosser reasoning to hold minor original occupant qualifies as "original occupant" for statutory rent-control purposes)