Thursday, September 28, 2017

Bending Laws of Physics - A New Opportunity For Lawyers in Richmond

Lawyers are so generally expected to be masters at bending laws, there are folklore quotes about it in pretty much every language. In Russian, the saying goes as "The Law is like an axle--it goes where you turn it." In other words, fatta la legge trovato l'inganno. But the newly enacted Rent Ordinance in the City of Richmond, California, raised the expectations of legal process to a new, previously unattended height--to bend the laws of physics. This must be the highest bar a practitioner will ever meet.

This is not say that time-bending is impossible. Other non-laywering professions post victorious news about conquering what was previously unthinkable, almost daily. Just yesterday, a gravitational wave from 2 billion years was detected, and the BBC today reported on a first-ever chemical surgery on an embryo, correcting its DNA. And now, thanks to the legislators in Richmond, we can boast of something too.

Friday, July 28, 2017

Owner move-in regulation expanded and tightened

On July 18, 2018, the new proposed regulations for the owner- and relative-move-in evictions passed in their final version, and yesterday the mayor has signed it into law. This legislation will significantly change the already heavily burdensome restrictions under the San Francisco Rent Ordinance, S.F. Admin. Code, Section 37.9(a)(8). It will become effective on January 1. Let us peek into what the legislators packed for landlords' Christmas sock.

Thursday, June 1, 2017

Hayes v Kardosh - Rule 12.20 explained and limited

In April an appellate decision came down in Hayes v. Kardosh, containing a detailed discussion about the extent of Rule 12.20 limitations in changing the terms of a tenancy, explaining its meaning within the San Francisco Rent Ordinance and particularly applying it to the Rules 6.15 regarding prohibition on subletting. It is too bad the decision is not certified for publication, but its reasoning still worth reading.

Thursday, February 2, 2017

Back to futuristic—for my future laptops I shall look over the shoulder

This is what happens to people, who are left idle to themselves—they may start thinking about some irrelevant stuff. This happened to me: I got sick and, under the influence of “Tera Flu,” could neither work, nor sleep. So it got me thinking. And who am I to think about work, while on vacation away from boss (me, when I am not sick, is that boss of mine)? So, not a word about work or law, here, I promise.

Sunday, January 15, 2017

New rules on restricting access to unlawful detainer records

Unlawful detainer records used to be "masked" from public access for the first 60 days and then, if no defendant settled or got dismissed in the interim and the case was still going on, the record would become publicly available. Case's records were opening up by default—a stipulation or a court order was required for the records to become hidden again. Now the order of things is refersed—it remains masked by default, and only upon a certain condition opens to public. Assembly Bill No. 2819, amending CCP § 1161.2 and establishing CCP § 1167.1, effective January 1, 2017.

Thursday, December 29, 2016

New rest period policies in California

On December 22, 2016, California Supreme Court in Augustus v. ABM Security Services (Case S224853)  has reversed the prior decision made by the appellate court [233 Cal.App.4th 1065 (2014) as modified 1/29/15], and pretty much established new rules applicable to the rest period policies.

Monday, October 31, 2016

"Educators" ban on evictions is gone, for now

On September 28, 2016, the San Francisco court adjudged the writ of mandate granted on August 31, invalidating the infamous ordinance of last year, which was injecting a new type of a protected tenant, the "educators." That the new limitation was overbroad and unnecessary wide, both as to covering categories of tenants, and in including previously unheard-of amount of types of evictions (even the temporary move-out for repairs)—all that I have already had an opportunity to cover in my earlier post. Thus, the Court's decision, invalidating the ordinance, was not a surprise to me.

What is surprising is how the Court arrived to invalidating this ordinance. This path seems to me worth our attention, to make a mental note in case of a similar argument in the future.