The San Francisco Rent Board has published the minutes for its December 2016 meeting. It also published its agenda for its next meeting.
San Francisco Legislative Update (2016): Landlord Discrimination in Internet Service Providers Prohibited
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously passed Ordinance 250-16, prohibiting ISP monopolies in “multiple occupancy buildings” (meaning more than four residential units), in what the SF Chronicle believes to be the first of its kind enacted by a U.S. city.
Ordinance 250-16 adds article 52 to the SF Police Code and mandates such bold edicts as “No property owner shall interfere with the right of an occupant to obtain communications services from the communications services provider of the occupant’s choice”.
New Allowable Rent Increase for San Francisco, Effective March 1, 2017
The Rent Board announced the new allowable rent increase rate for San Francisco rent controlled tenancies for March 1, 2017 to February 28, 2018. The new allowable increase of 2.2% is effective for increases going into effect on March 1, 2017.
Several Bay Area Cities Approve Rent And Eviction Control Measures
Voters in several counties across the Bay Area were asked to voice their opinions on rent and eviction control on election day. With the exception of San Mateo County, Bay Area residents enacted measures that will limit future rent increases and allowable reasons for evictions.
Costa-Hawkins prohibits local price control regulations on rental units constructed after February 1, 1995, as well as rental units that are separately alienable from others on the same parcel (i.e., houses and condos). Each of the local rent-control measures, therefore, sought to impose price controls (keyed to the consumer price index to maintain fair returns after inflation) for multi-unit buildings that existed prior to the enactment of Costa-Hawkins.
Costa-Hawkins does not affect eviction controls, and California has no other state eviction law, so several of these measures are able to impose “just cause for eviction” regulations on residential rental units, whether or not they are multi-unit and regardless of the year of construction.
San Mateo County:
Burlingame Measure R: Failed
Measure R would have imposed rent control on pre-1995, multi-unit buildings. Would have required “just cause” for eviction on all rental units.
San Mateo Measure Q: Failed
Measure Q would have imposed rent control on pre-1995, multi-unit buildings. Would have required “just cause” for eviction on all rental units.
Santa Clara County:
Mountain View had two competing rent control measures on the ballot – Measure W and Measure V – and voters passed the stronger of the two, Measure V.
Measure V imposes rent control on pre-1995, multi-unit buildings (keyed to CPI but nonetheless between 2 and 5%), and creates limits on evictions. It exempts single family homes and condos from both rent and eviction controls.
Contra Costa County:
Richmond Measure L: Passed.
Measure L imposes rent control on pre-1995, multi-unit buildings and imposes eviction control on all rental units.
Alameda County:
The City of Alameda had two competing rent control measures on the ballot – Measure L1 and Measure M1 – and voters passed the softer of the two, Measure L1.
Instead of rent control, Measure L1 requires that rent increases above 5 percent require mediation, which is binding as to pre-1995, multi-unit buildings. It also imposes eviction controls on all rental property.
Oakland Measure JJ: Passed.
Measure JJ amends Oakland’s Rent Adjustment Program to require city approval before raising rents above the standard CPI increase, and it would extend eviction controls to buildings constructed before 1995.
Contreras v. Dowling (2016) – Anti-SLAPP Protection for Attorney-Client Relationships in the Face of “Unadorned” Allegations of Attorney-Client Conspiracy
“We decline to infer Dowling’s concurrence in his clients’ acts from the mere existence of their attorney-client relationship. Contreras cites no authority holding that an attorney-client relationship is evidence of a conspiracy between the attorney and client, and our own research discloses none. Moreover, we share Dowling’s expressed concern about the implications of such a holding. He contends there will be a chilling effect on attorneys if their communicative acts can be placed outside the protection of section 425.16 by the unadorned allegation that they conspired in their clients’ torts. Contreras airily dismisses this concern, arguing ‘any chilling effect that conclusion may have on conspiracies between lawyers and their clients must be counted an unalloyed benefit.’ We are not so sanguine. ‘The fears of chilled speech and hindered justice are too much a part of our case law to be disregarded as unproved.’ . . . We refuse Contreras’s invitation to infer an attorney-client conspiracy from the mere existence of an attorney-client relationship.”
California’s Anti-SLAPP Law (Cal. Code Civ. Proc., §425.16) is designed to question, at an early stage of litigation, whether certain claims that arise from a defendant’s petitioning conduct has sufficient, minimal merit to proceed. If not, the defendant may use a special motion to strike to eliminate certain claims that the plaintiff cannot prevail on.
“Petitioning conduct” can refer to a fairly wide-range of a defendant’s exercises of free speech rights. When that defendant is also an attorney, and the conduct is closely connected with her provision of legal advise in the context of an attorney-client relationship, this activity should fall squarely within the ambit of the anti-SLAPP statute.
Nonetheless, the landlords in the controversy underlying Contreras v. Dowling engaged in activity that allegedly constituted wrongful eviction. And, because they had counsel at the time of the alleged tort, the tenant sued the landlords for the wrongful eviction and sued the attorney, Dowling, for “conspiracy” to commit the tort.
Rent Board Publishes Minutes of Its Regular November 2016 Meeting
Measure JJ (2016): Oakland Asks Voters To Expand Eviction Protections and Let Rent Adjustment Program Review All Rent Increases
Oakland’s November ballot will ask residents whether to approve Measure JJ – an effort to further regulate rent increases and to expand eviction controls.
Oakland’s rental housing policy is effectuated through its Rent Adjustment Ordinance (Oakland Municipal Code §§8.22.010, et seq.) and the later-enacted Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance, i.e., “Measure EE” (§§8.22.300, et seq.).
Measure JJ would require that landlords must petition the Rent Adjustment Program prior to serving any rent increase notices that exceed those allowed by the Rent Adjustment Ordinance (i.e., in the event of a Costa-Hawkins increase).
It would also amend Measure EE, which previously exempted any “newly constructed” units created after its enactment. It would alter the “new construction” exemption to include any units built through December 31, 1995. This date happens to be the last date that Costa-Hawkins “grandfathered” in certain units/tenancies that it otherwise sought to exempt from rent control. However, it’s not clear from the City Council’s findings why they chose this date, as Costa-Hawkins (a state law) does not regulate eviction controls – an authority long held to be reserved to local governments.
Meanwhile, the petition prerequisite for rent increases could conceivably come into conflict with state law on noticing periods for rent increases. (See, Tri Cty. Apartment Assn. v. City of Mountain View (1987) 196 Cal. App. 3d 1283.)
Rent Board Publishes Minutes of Its Regular October 2016 Meeting
Hjelm v. Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc. – First District Court of Appeals Instructs on the Importance of Following the Rules
The opinion of the First District Court of Appeals in Hjelm v. Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc. reads like a lecture to Prometheus and its counsel. It reviewed the history of the dispute between the parties – from the execution of improperly drafted lease, through the vacating of a mismanaged property, through an over-litigated case (with two motions for summary adjudication on the single issue of entitlement to fees), which culminated in a partially untimely appeal. Hjelm teaches important lessons to property managers and attorneys on how to avoid being penalized for not following the rules.
The trial court found that the Hjelms signed a residential lease for a rental unit in San Mateo. They did not have an opportunity to negotiate their lease, which was mailed to them out of state for their signature. The family vacated a little over a year after moving in, following a persistent and unaddressed bedbug problem. At trial, management personnel testified that they had no real policy for dealing with bedbugs and that high turnover prevented new employees from effectively taking on existing problems.
The appeal sought to review the judgment itself, as well as a healthy award of $326,475.00 in attorneys’ fees (accrued in obtaining damages of only about $70,000.00). However, only the award of attorneys’ fees was properly before the Court because the appeal of the verdict was untimely.
Continue reading “Hjelm v. Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc. – First District Court of Appeals Instructs on the Importance of Following the Rules”
