Oh sheet, the background-check forms

A job applicant who suffered no harm, lost no job, and had not one inaccurate line in the background report can still sue the employer who ran the background check, to pursue statutory damages. The damages range from $100 to $1,000, but when multiplied by the number of employees joined in a class action, that single page form suddenly becomes a very expensive sheet in the employee’s file to make a mistake on. Counting by the zeros it might add to the judgment value, it is the literal O-sheet piece of paper, not even funny. Such is the practical lesson of Askins v. CRST Expedited, Inc., No. A172921, June 4, 2026, where the First District held that an employer’s failure to follow the federal "FCRA" (the Fair Credit Reporting Act) rules for the disclosure form is itself the injury, and that no separate harm is needed to sue over it in a California court.

Who Cares About the CARES Act?

With the COVID pandemic in the past, and no new pandemic announced yet, who would be caring today about the “CARES” Act (Pub. L. No. 116-136, 134 Stat. 281 (2020)? I am talking about one of its remaining requirements, the length of an eviction notice, mandated to be at least 30 days for the “covered” properties. Turns out, the tenants, the landlords, and the practitioners care about this issue a lot, on both sides of the docket. Has it expired already or not? The quest to find the answer continues.

SVF Grosvenor Del Rey Corp.: to whom thy payment is made

A landlord who indicates in a pay-or-quit notice that the payment would be acceptable by one of several methods, must insert the full scope of identification for each of the indicated means of payment, even if it sounds repetitive or counter-intuitive. And that identification now means the person to whom the payment is being delivered, not just the person to whom the payment is made. That is the core meaning of the decision in SVF Grosvenor Del Rey Corp. v. Schwarz, No. 25APLC00345, that was published on May 27, 2026. A three-day notice to pay rent or quit that offers a tenant to pay by mail must state the name, telephone number, and address of the person to whom the rent is to be sent, likewise for a personal delivery, even if it is the same person. An incomplete description in one of the methods would sink the entire notice, even if the other methods were flawlessly described, and even if the missing information on the mailing delivery would be a copy of what was indicated for an in-person payment.

Colonial Manor: what to know about the tenant’s wife

Landlord’s duties in drafting an eviction notice and the scope of the burden of proof in the consequent eviction lawsuit just got enlarged by the decision handed down from the Appellate Division of the Los Angeles Superior Court. The case is Colonial Manor, Inc. v. Reyes, No. 24APLC00316, as modified May 19, 2026 (modified opinion PDF). The landlord now has to account for a tenant’s spouse, to see if he or she should be treated as an original tenant, even if the spouse moved in years later.

On March 7, 2025, it was announced that the White House is intending to cancel off the federal funds' support program from the Columbia University, to the tune of $400 Millions. By March 21, 2025, the university had found the way to restore the cash flow, responding with this statement. This thinly veiled maneuver, the "dramatic concessions" as Reuters has put it, sent shock waves worldwide. Columbia students were reportedly upset, which is of course understandable. No one would wish to be associated with such a u-turn on its stance to the right of speech, freedom to associate, or even basic privacy (the "concessions" included the agreement to prohibit face masks).

But, it turned out there is some luck for Columbia next generation of graduates after all, at least for the ones from its law school.

On March 14, 2025, the White House had officially let the world know what it thinks about the law firm "Paul Weiss."  The same (and very effective!) lever of cutting out the source of funding was applied to a private law firm, because its too found itself enjoying those same principles of speech and association too freely (evidently, there are now tighter limits to these freedoms).

Paul Weiss is not the only firm in the White House's crosshairs, and Columbia is not the only university put on the funding chopping block. But, just like Columbia, Paul Weiss made history by being the first one in their field to dispel with suddenly inconvenient and expensive freedoms, and to return to the feeding pens.

On March 20, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, agreed to reverse its course and align itself with the government.  What took Columbia two weeks, Paul Weiss did in just 6 days. Even the White House was surprised, calling it "a remarkable change of course."

This might be very, very, sad news for democracy, but hey, it is great news for the Columbia law school grads––because now they know, at least one law firm will not turn them down for the reason that their diplomas were marred in some constitutional controversy. And the pull of the similarly situated employers in all likelihood will grow. Unfortunately, the same is expected from the pull of the schools.

The future is looking very bright. I summed it up like this:

Don't worry, there is still a freedom of choice:

You can opt to trade your freedom of voice

For the right to be able to buy new toys.

 

And here is an AI doodle for you on the topic:

Honey Look, My Ballot Envelope Has a Hole

Last Sunday, I thought of spending at least a part of the weekend to vote. I unpacked the ballots, read the booklet, contemplated the choices to make ... and, since I was planning to vote early by making a deposit to the ballot box, I looked at the envelope too.  Once in the past, I made a mistake while filling in the envelope, and I wanted to make it right this time on the first attempt.

The envelope had circle hole through it, which I thought was there for the purpose of indicating whether the envelope has something in it.  When I folded the ballots and inserted them in the envelope to check how things fit, I noticed that "Trump" choice from the ballot showed up right in that hole, and remained visible. It showed up the same way when I flipped the ballots, because the name and the hole both happened to be centered from both sides of the envelope.  It caught my eye, and made me spend the rest of my weekend thinking if this is an issue worth talking about. I concluded that it does, and, with the hopes that the practice will be avoided for the benefit of all participants involved, I share my thoughts here.

How the legal profession can come to a halt, and what you can do to keep on going

For almost the entire day yesterday, Thomson Reuters Westlaw was down. I am using it since 2009 and this was the first time I have experienced the outage there, overall a pretty good indicator of the things working 99% of the time. Suddenly being left without this research tool, it was a powerful reminder that nothing is guaranteed to be ever-present and available for us online, and with our dependency on it, it is scary to think about the "what if" situation. This made me think of two things: that the progress in our profession could be curbed, and that we should take those contingencies into account if we wish to keep on going.

The requirement of the additional 10-day notice in San Francisco is eliminated (SFRO 37.9(o))

The Covid-era additional requirement for an eviction notice in San Francisco was imposed by the Ordinance 18-22 in early 2022 and remained on the books since then, even though it was trimmed a bit later that year by the San Francisco Apartment Association winning against the application of the additional 10-days notice for an eviction for non-payment of rent. As of September 11, 2024, the entire ordinance now is seemingly on its way out, with SFAA winning its on its appeal.

Alameda County and Oakland City eviction moratoria survived the court challenge

Federal District Court, Judge Laurel Beeler, issued an order on November 22, 2022, denying a challenge to the eviction moratoria of the Alameda County and City of Oakland (cases Nos. 3:22-cv-01274 and 3:22-cv-02705). Links to those two ordinances are here and here.

In my view, the order is wrong, insofar it is based on a finding that each moratorium is "temporary." There is no practical indication in either moratorium that it will ever expire, except if their respective legislators (County's Board of Supervisors and Oakland's City Council) would some day have a whim to declare the Covid health emergency to be over. This makes it uncertain enough to wonder, what are the limits of declaring an "emergency." In the state concept, it is 180 days. (Gov-t Code § 11346.1, subd. (e).) I don't see why on the municipal level it should be indefinite, literally meaning that the end of the measure's term is not defined. It might be "temporary" in the court's view, we are all temporary here, but it is still indefinite.

What would suggest to the local legislators to declare the end of the emergency, what are the measuring factors? We don't know.

The employment rates are back to the pre-Covid times, with the unemployment historically low and the labor force still needing more people. (From the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.) Payrolls and wages are reported to "blow past expectations (URL upd. 06/26)," despite the interest rate hikes. Alameda county's unemployment is at 2.80%, it is right where it was before Covid (2.90% in January 2020). The same story is in the city of Oakland. (Around 3.50% now, 3.70% in January 2020.)  The Covid cases' rates are low in the county. So low that Alameda rescinded the mask mandate in June of 2022. Oakland did it in November.

The court has to consider the actual state of affairs in deciding whether the declared emergency exists. It had been held that "while the declaration by the Legislature as to the existence of the emergency was entitled to great respect, it was not conclusive; and, further, that a law ‘depending upon the existence of an emergency or other certain state of facts to uphold it may cease to operate if the emergency ceases or the facts change even though valid when passed.’ It is always open to judicial inquiry whether the exigency still exists upon which the continued operation of the law depends." (Home Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell (1934) 290 U.S. 398, 442, emphasis added, citing Chastleton Corp. v. Sinclair (1924) 264 U.S. 543, 547–548 ["a Court is not at liberty to shut its eyes to an obvious mistake, when the validity of the law depends upon the truth of what is declared. (citations). And still more obviously so far as this declaration looks to the future it can be no more than prophecy and is liable to be controlled by events. A law depending upon the existence of an emergency or other certain state of facts to uphold it may cease to operate if the emergency ceases or the facts change even though valid when passed"].)

Presumably, these are the same legislators who continue to insist the moratorium should remain in place because the Covid emergency remains a threat. How they reconcile the labor data, the infections' rates, and their own decisions on other aspects of governing the same issue in the same county/city (e.g., the mask mandate), is hard to imagine. What is easier to imagine is what drives those policies to remain in place––the constituency. More to the point--what stops the court to revisit the basis for the emergency?

The danger with this upholding of a  indefinite-temporary policy goes beyond just the city of Oakland and county of Alameda and beyond the recent Covid pandemic. It becomes a dangerous precedent, as the vote-hungry legislators from other localities will take a note on this precedent and weaponize it to buy some votes on the cheap. It doesn't even have to be even Covid-related. Any future challenge a community might face could be used as a pretext to stop the operation of applicable statutes and prevent the contracts from being enforced, all without declaring any particular time-frame or conditions, upon which this imposing emergency legislation would sunset. It could remain in force just because some XYZ said so. I hope the appeal of this decision is coming up soon.

while the declaration by the Legislature as to the existence of the emergency was entitled to great respect, it was not conclusive; and, further, that a law ‘depending upon the existence of an emergency or other certain state of facts to uphold it may cease to operate if the emergency ceases or the facts change even though valid when passed.’ It is always open to judicial inquiry whether the exigency still exists upon which the continued operation of the law depends.

Home Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell (1934) 290 U.S. 398, 442

 

that a law ‘depending upon the existence of an emergency or other certain state of facts to uphold it may cease to operate if the emergency ceases or the facts change even though valid when passed.’ It is always open to judicial inquiry whether the exigency still exists upon which the continued operation of the law depends.

Home Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell (1934) 290 U.S. 398, 442

Tenant Relief Act of 2020 - Forms

The Tenant Relief Act of 2020 has passed into law, and its full text is available here. It is rather a lengthy document, because it amends and adds quite a few statutes. A myriad of articles is written on this new law, and I am only adding mine to cover two practical areas of the subject: the forms and the quirky part in the due-date language, regarding the landlord's obligation to give notice.

Bay Area courts re-opening

This week, with the "Stage 2" lessening, finally came the tide of the courts reopening.

[Update May 29] But not the federal bankruptcy courts - - just announced to remain close to public through September (link)

Alameda court is now accepting almost all civil filings, makes hearing reservations, and offers hearings via phone and video remote access: Rule 1.8a (URL upd. 06/26) and Rule 3.30 (URL upd. 06/26) (May 7, 2020, version). Appeals and unlawful detainers remain on hold. Alameda court adopted "Blue Jeans (URL upd. 06/26)" technology for video appearances.
[Update May 20, 2020] - now says the court mostly (yet remotely) re-opens (link).

Contra Costa starts conducting remote hearings on May 18, as its May 5 (URL upd. 06/26) press-release states.
On May 13, the updated order (URL upd. 06/26) was issued, it looks like the court reopened on May 26 for physical access to the hearings (essential parties only, no records' department, and wear a mask of course). But there is no mentioning of remote hearings in the order.

Santa Clara court in today's order promised to reopen Law & Motion on May 19 and Appellate division on May 22 (May 8, 2020, order (URL upd. 06/26)).

Also today, San Mateo published its reopening order, it has several dates there for different purposes, but the general note is that it is reopening during the next 2 weeks for remote hearings. Entered on May 18, an updated order hints at June 12 as the reopening date, with the unlawful detainers pushed further down, at least to June 22 for the earliest trial date.

San Francisco court was silent this week, no new orders since April 30, but the e-filing does go through, as it was going before. Even better, limited UD cases are now also included in the e-filing system. Main operations are still expected to reopen after June 1, with the housing court kicking in after June 22nd.
[May 27 update] - the court opens up mostly (and mostly for remotely handled hearings) on June 1 (link (URL upd. 06/26)). The emergency is however continued through June 19 (order).

Marin county court also remains closed until May 29 based on its own April 30 order, no word on a sooner reopening there yet. May 26 order confirms the date and provides some more detail, all matters to proceed remotely from June 1 on. Marin court adopted Zoom for video appearances, and those appearances are free of charge.

The above news are welcomed, I was wondering why not to keep the remote hearings and e-filing going, which are mostly available with the help of the CourtCall and e-filing providers (although not each court fully accepts e-files yet). Coming into the court in person is still a risky proposition, but remotely it could be all done, the technology is there. Keeping the courts open is important, and it can be done without physical contact for a large chunk of operations.

But please remain careful and avoid coming to courts in person. Why I am glad the courts are reopening for remote hearings, I don't understand why the lessening is made under the banner of an improving virus situation. Look at the graphs (URL upd. 06/26), published by the state (update.covid19.ca.gov). If these were the graphs of some stock, I would say the trends of both the cases and the deaths are still creeping up, maybe slower, but not giving up yet. And while the number of cases' growth is not just due to the spread, but also because of the increased testing, the deaths are only increasing with the virus spread, and they are not declining. We went into the quarantine when there were recorded 3-4-9 deaths per day. We now have the latest spikes and valleys between 45-98 and 39-95 runs, I mean, over 10 times more deaths now from when the complete shutdown was ordered. Remote court operations are great, but when we need to be physically there, remember that there is no vaccine yet, so the risk of infection remains the same, hanging solely on the chance that each court visitor (and each co-commuter on the way to the court and back) had a mask or stayed home.
[update May 27]: we do now have "lows" in 20-19 region, and lower heights too, so the overall "curve" looks flat or even declining a bit, in approximation, but in no way ceasing or falling (i.e., after several days of declining, today's number of deaths was 70).

Intermediate Length Occupancy Ordinance passed

On May 5, 2020, the Board of Supervisors accepted in first reading the fifth version of the new "Intermediate Length Occupancy" regulation (link).

The ordinance amends S.F. Planning Code "to create the Intermediate Length Occupancy residential use characteristic," and implements the consequent protections and enforcement in the Rent Ordinance

Compliance with the statewide rent control requirements

The set of statutes defining the California statewide rent- and eviction-control were enacted back in September 2019 (the AB 1482 bill).  For the most part, it is a set of prohibitions, regulating how the rent can be raised or the tenancy terminated, in effect since January 1, 2020.  But the statutes also require of the landlords to include new language in their leases, and these requirements kick in on July 1, 2020. This article is written to help you not to overlook them.

California joins Oregon in approving statewide rent control

This was expected to pass for a few months, and just happened now.  The bill is expected to be signed in to law in a matter of days. Even municipalities with already existing local rent- and eviction-control ordinances may see a significant impact, because the statewide law will incompass buildings previously excluded through the year of completion (in San Francisco, it raises the cut-off from 1978 to 2004, a 15-year mark). As to the areas previously excluded, those where rents used to increase by large margins will be the first to feel the difference.

Statewide rent control is coming to California. Like now.

[2019-09-11 UPDATE] it has passed the Senate today.

This is just in. The bill passed the Assembly and is expected to pass the Senate as well:
https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/05/29/california-rent-cap-bill/amp/

Current version of the bill is here.
Related to is Assembly bill on "just cause" eviction control is moving along as well, progress is reported here.

All of the above is despite last Fall's failure to win voters' consent to similar measures at the poll, the "Proposition 10."

waste of time as sanctionable conduct

In preparation to my second visit to London with our Bar's Litigation Section (called "A Legal Week In London," highly recommended), I was sharing my experiences from my first trip in 2015 with colleagues, and the discussion quickly centered on what differences I had then observed between how the courts operate there and here.  My observations are from the ground up: I appear regularly in law & motion and trial settings, and so can only compare from a view of a field practitioner. I make this comment because our visiting group in London included all kinds of members, from transactional attorneys, to appellate practitioners, to in-house counsel, and even judges and one appellate judge. So, what may have appeared noticeable in differences for them, might not strike me a worthy of note at all.

Landlord's duty to update contact information - CC § 1962(c) interpreted by the court

In DLI Properties v. Hill, (Los Angeles App. Dep't Super. Ct., Sept. 17, 2018, No. BV 032016, 2018 WL 6192245) the court addressed the recently added sub-division (c) to Civil Code Section 1962, which provides that the landlord is barred from evicting a tenant for non-payment of rent during the period such landlord failed to inform the tenant about a change in the contact information.

This may apply in a rent-controlled jurisdiction, such as San Francisco, where the local municipal ordinance also contains requirements for the owners to inform about the changes.

Book update - ver. 2.8

I had a chance to update the book to include latest changes across the topics (and as usual, weeding out any typos I could find). There is also a brand-new chapter added - eviction notices under 37.9(a)(9), for the sale following a condo-conversion.

The links to both the paper and e-book versions remain the same, just check on the version No. before downloading, it shall show «2.8»

If you happened to purchase versions 2.6 or 2.7 this year, let me know, I will be glad to supply you with the paper copy of 2.8, so you have this year's updates and the additional chapter.

Here are the links to the updated e-book and paper versions.

New legislation signed today: timing on eviction notices and responding to UD summons and deposition notices

Among 25 bills signed today (URL upd. 06/26), one drew my attention: extending time to respond to eviction notices and to unlawful detainer summons (AB 2343).

How Preemptive Is the Ellis Act?

On June 20, 2018, California Supreme Court denied review of Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute v. City & County of San Francisco (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 77, thus affirming its holding, striking a 10-year ban on alterations of non-conforming units following the Ellis Act evictions.  The decision was reached on the preemption argument of the Ellis Act (Cal. Gov. Code § 7060 et seq.).  How often it is a winning argument, and how universally its preemption is applied? Let us take a look at a few recent decisions.