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.

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.

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.

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.

Another attack on Rent Ordinance Registration Requirement--This Time In San Jose

I must start with repeating an old joke. As a train arrived to the station, a passenger asked a conductor: "will this train take me to the Main Street?"  "No," replied the conductor, "of course not, we don't even have the tracks laid in that direction." Another eager passenger standing behind the first one then asks, "would this train take me there?"

This anecdote came up when I've read the news yesterday, announcing that the San Jose landlords seek court's help in preventing the San Jose's rent ordinance new requirement for landlords to register with the board and provide specific information on each rent-controlled tenancy. We wish these landlords luck, wholeheartedly, and check on where all prior trains took landlords on this argument.

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.

10-year ban on residential mergers following non-fault eviction is confirmed as invalid by the appellate court

On September 19, 2016, San Francisco homeowners got confirmed in their relief, when the appellate court affirmed our county court's decision to strike a 10-year ban on residential mergers, following a non-fault eviction. The decision became final on October 24 (3 Cal.App 5th 463).  And yes, we are now in the fifth series of appellate decisions, since July 1, 2016.

Disability As Criminal Defense

This post covers how some well known concepts of criminal defense in California can be made in the context of a disabled defendant. There is nothing new in the rules, yet the recent case, People v. Gana, provides some more detail and guidelines on application.

Security Deposit - Held In Trust Or Not?

It is an understandable to assume that, when you entrust someone with your money, to hold and use only under certain conditions, and to return the money back to you when/if those conditions don't apply, the money are held by someone in trust for you (Dillon v. Cross (URL upd. 06/26) (1907) 5 Cal.App. 766; Spencer v. Duncan (1895) 107 Cal. 423), or as a bailee (Niiya v. Goto (1960, Cal App 2d Dist) 181 Cal. App. 2d 682; CC § 1814).

Not so with the security deposits. The court in Korens v. R. W. Zukin Corp. (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1054, ruled that the money held by the landlords as security deposits create a debtor-creditor relationship, but are not held in trust, citing in support CC § 1950.5(d). (Id. at 1058-1059). Is the Korens Rule absolute? As it is with many legal concepts,  the answer is "it depends."

Stealthy Amendment to The Rent Ordinance

Some amendments pass while being widely covered in the news, but not this one. It was not even announced in the "What's New (URL upd. 05/26)" section of the Rent Board. And yet it did pass and will become effective in a couple of weeks, Ordinance 0017-16.
[Update 3-22-16] - The new form is now available for download and the news announcement is published]

This ordinance is a very short piece, but the changes it enacts should not be overlooked; indeed, that is the very danger of unknown changes in legislature, since ignorantia juris non excusat,* an ancient maxim apparently known since Aristotle. If you are like me, and had no idea about the changes coming, you might be interested in this summary below:

Waiver Defense Becomes Available To Landlords

Interpreting a lease agreement under the latest court decisions will be much different from the rules accepted among practitioners even a year ago. It seems the changes are now coming down almost every week, and the latest one is a rare specimen: Chen v. Kraft (2016) 243 Cal.App.4th Supp. 13 (URL upd. 06/26). It holds, among other findings, that a landlord may not waive a prohibition against illegal use of the property, even if a landlord were to enter into a written agreement expressly permitting such use.

Of What Materials May Court Take Judicial Notice?

Request for judicial notice is a widely deployed vehicle for bringing court's attention to certain materials and records. In California, it is regulated by the California Evidence Code ("CEC"), Sections 450-460. It generally defines what requires judicial notice be mandatorily taken of (CEC 451), and what may be judicially noticed at court's discretion (CEC 452, 452.5). The rule is also stated for the contrary: what is not authorized by law, may not be judicially noticed (CEC 450). If the court declines to take judicial notice, the court shall let the parties know about its decision a.s.a.p., and indicate the denial on the record (CEC 456). However, such denial is never final and can be later reversed (CEC 458).

As comprehensive as the judicial notice statutes are written, they can't physically encompass every possible kind of matter litigants may request the court to take judicial notice of. It thus brings the question, what kind of non-obvious materials were previously judicially noticed? This post is a short review of items I was able to identify.

2015 Roundup In CA/SF Real Property Law

2015 was an eventful year, if measured in the scope of the real property legal changes. No stone left unturned. I got to witness it from the front seat myself: for this was the year when I decided to publish my book on the San Francisco eviction notices. It got published in April 2015, and I thought to be done with it for awhile. Little did I know, the changes would demand me to issue seven revisions during next five months, after which a big slew of changes came at once with the Ordinance 171-15, making me to rewrite almost the whole book anew! Version 2.0 went out in December (and yes, with some of the even more recent changes mentioned here, version 2.1 is already in the making).  But enough about me, let's look back and observe, what an enormous year 2015 was for the legal landscape in CA/SF real estate:

Demurrer By A Motion To Quash Is No More--Delta Motion Is Held Wrong Practice

For many years, there was a peculiar decision in Delta Imps. v. Mun. Ct. (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 1033, holding that the only way a complaint in unlawful detainer can be challenged on legal grounds was for a tenant to bring a motion to quash, not a demurrer. Many voiced their disagreement with this case during its 32-year legacy, and it seems that the last nail has arrived this week, the decision in Borsuk v. App. Div. of the Sup. Ct. (2015) 242 Cal. App. 4th 607.

Drafting Eviction Notice In San Francisco -- Book's Volume I Is Published

I  am excited to report that the first part of my book, covering general requirements and nine "for-fault" evictions, is finally out and went live on Amazon today. Here are direct links: paperback and the ebook (URL upd. 06/26) versions. Second volume is still in the works, it will cover the "no fault" evictions.

Historical Development Of Eviction Laws

An eviction lawsuit is not a modern invention. Its elements developed over the course of centuries, some surprisingly long time ago. This short article is an attempt to cover most noticeable cornerstones.

New practice of S.F. tax assessor requesting extensive info

A new practice of assessing the property tax gains speed in San Francisco. No longer it is enough to report your sale's price to establish the new value. Instead, new owners now receive a letter like this from the San Francisco Tax Assessor Office. It asks the new buyer about a lot of additional information, even some that buyer may not even know, such as future rent values. What a buyer to do?

Direct Deposits And Other Electronic Means Affecting Landlord and Tenant Duties

An important new case came down last December, Kruger v. Reyes, 232 Cal.App.4th Supp. 10, 181 Cal. Rptr. 3d 521 (2014), covering several rules: timely service of the notice for non-payment rent, proper calculations in that notice of the rent due and the time when it is due. None of those concepts are new, but the case contains rare findings due to its fact pattern, including the issue of tenants paying rent by depositing funds directly to the landlord's account.

Eviction Control v. Rent Control - Is It Possible To Evict From a Single Family House In San Francisco?

Common wisdom holds that, while certain housing units are exempt from the Rent Control in San Francisco, they are still subject to the Eviction Control. That is, even if you can raise rent in those units above the limits (URL upd. 05/26 — original Topic No. 19 archive (2015)) dictated by the Rent Board, you still can't evict a person but for the defined "just cause" reasons. Such is the statement in Topic No. 19, issued by the San Francisco Rent Board.

Yet a close analysis of applicable sections of the SF Administrative Code indicates that an exception to the rule does exist, albeit a very narrow one. Despite what is said in the Topic No. 19, the prohibition is not absolute.