Jane Kim Amendment Thwarts Incomplete Unlawful Detainer Complaints

SFSC

The San Francisco Housing Court has begun sustaining demurrers to unlawful detainer complaints that fail to allege compliance with the “dominant motive” requirement of the Section 37.9(c) of the Rent Ordinance and/or attach termination notices that do not include the Rent Board’s Form 1007, containing multi-language advice to tenants about the Rent Board.

These new requirements – imposed by the “Jane Kim Amendment” to the Rent Ordinance – have been catching some practitioners off guard (which, to some degree, may have been the point). While it is a simple enough task to amend the complaint to state that “collection of rent” (or whatever) is the landlord’s “dominant motive” (as is now required by the amended Section 37.9(c)), the missing Form 1007 is more problematic.

Section 1166 of the Code of Civil Procedure, requiring landlords to attach termination notices, does allow amendment of the complaint upon failure to attach a copy of the notice (or, unless leave to amend is futile, a complete copy of the notice). Unfortunately for landlords, Form 1007 must be attached to the notice, the service of which is a prerequisite to an unlawful detainer cause of action.

Following the recent Borsuk decision, Delta Motions To Quash no longer appear to be a viable pleading challenge to test the sufficiency of a cause of action for unlawful detainer. Nonetheless, this kind of defective pleading would seem to appear on the face of the unlawful detainer complaint, making it appropriate for demurrer. And, where a properly-served and legally sufficient notice of termination is a prerequisite for unlawful detainer standing, leave to amend is not likely to rescue the lawsuit.

facebooktwitterredditlinkedinmail

Federal Court Dismisses SFAA Challenge to SF Buyout Legislation

USDC

Following its removal of the lawsuit from State to Federal court, the City and County of San Francisco moved for judgment on the pleadings of the San Francisco Apartment Association’s challenge to the City’s new “buyout legislation”.

The SFAA challenged the legislation just days before its operative date, on several constitutional grounds. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the case on the City’s motion, finding that the buyout legislation did not violate San Francisco landlords’ rights to free speech, due process, equal protection or privacy, ultimately characterizing the burdens under the legislation as reasonably related to the City’s legitimate interest in protecting tenants by remediating disparities in bargaining position. SFAA is appealing the decision to the Ninth Circuit.

facebooktwitterredditlinkedinmail