Zacks, Freedman & Patterson, PC attended the Filipino Bar Association of Northern California celebration of retired Judge Ronald Evans Quidachay, hosted by the Dolan Law Firm.
(Featured: Staff Attorney Olga Grecova, Justin A. Goodman of Zacks, Freedman & Patterson, PC and Hon. Judge Ronald Evans Quidachay)
Judge Quidachay was one of the founding members of FBANC and the first Filipino-American to be appointed as a judge in Northern California (in 1983).
Also in attendance were the members of FBANC, past and present court staff, friends, family and the landlord and tenant attorneys who have had the great pleasure of arguing before him in Housing Court (some for their entire careers).
Thus, under Birkenfeld, municipalities may by ordinance limit the substantive grounds for eviction by specifying that a landlord may gain possession of a rental unit only on certain limited grounds. But they may not procedurally impair the summary eviction scheme set forth in the unlawful detainer statutes. The Property Owners argue the Ordinance is procedural because it governs the timing of notices of eviction: ‘The Ordinance does not limit the allowable justifications for evicting tenants; it only delays certain evictions.’ Such questions of timing, they contend, are purely procedural. The City argues the Ordinance is substantive because timing is merely a component of the substantive defense to eviction: ‘When the household to be evicted includes a child under the age of 18 or an ‘educator’ within the terms of the Ordinance, ‘good cause’ for a landlord to undertake any of the specified types of no-fault evictions does not exist unless the eviction is to take effect during the summer months.’ As this case illustrates, the distinction between procedure and substantive law can be shadowy and difficult to draw in practice.
In SFAA v. CCSF, Division Five of the First District Court of Appeal overturned the SF Housing Court’s order mandating that the City not enforce a 2016 amendment to the Rent Ordinance (Ordinance 55-16) that created a substantive defense to certain non-fault evictions for “educators”.
Continue reading SFAA v. CCSF (2018): City’s “Educator” Eviction Defense Upheld as “Substantive” Rather Than “Procedural”
September 15th is the first deadline for “Tier One” property owners to submit permit applications for work under the City’s mandatory seismic retrofit program – a 2013 ordinance that requires owners of certain multiunit wood-frame buildings with “soft stories” (i.e., open space first floors that are weaker and more flexible than the stories above) to reinforce the structure to increase resiliency in the event of an earthquake.
The SF Examiner reports that, “Failure to comply with the Sept. 15 deadline will come with penalties. For instance, The City would post an ‘Earthquake Warning’ placard on the property and issue a notice of violations. After the 30-day notice, The City can assess monetary penalties along with putting a lien on the property”.
Property owners can search the Department of Building Inspection website to determine the compliance tier and associated deadline for their buildings.
“We conclude the prohibitive price standard is the appropriate standard to determine conflict preemption under the Ellis Act. It is the measure appellate courts consistently adopt to determine if a challenged ordinance contradicts the state law.”
Today, Division Five of the First District Court of Appeal affirmed Judge Quidachay of the San Francisco Housing Court, who previously held that San Francisco’s enhanced relocation assistance payment ordinance was not a “reasonable” means of mitigating the impact of tenant displacement by the Ellis Act. In 2015, plaintiffs, including individual landlords and the Small Property Owners of San Francisco, argued in Coyne v. CCSF that an enhanced relocation assistance payment regime was preempted by the Ellis Act. The payment amounted to a subsidy of a tenant’s new rent for two years after displacement under the Ellis Act.
Division Five affirmed the ruling, but determined that the correct standard was whether a local ordinance places a “prohibitive price” on a landlord’s ability to exit the rental market. “Like provisions in past City-enacted ordinances which have been invalidated, the City’s Rental Payment Differential obligation places conditions on a landlord’s right to go out of business that are not found in the Ellis Act. The Ellis Act contains no requirement that obliges a landlord to pay their former tenants future rental subsidies so that they can leave the residential rental business.” Division Five agreed with its colleagues in Division Three, which recently applied the “prohibitive price” standard to invalidate San Francisco’s prohibition on the merger of rental units for 10 years after an owner has invoked the Ellis Act.