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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

1:1 - Two Recent Attacks on Ellis Act Notice Went Different Ways

Within one week the Appellate Division of the San Francisco Superior Court issued two decisions addressing requirements for an Ellis Act eviction under S.F. Admin. Code, Section 37.9A(f), taking an evidently different approach in reading the section in two cases and achieving opposite results.

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.

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.

Dog Law

Dogs are in the spotlight lately. Governor Brown has recently signed into law a new act allowing statewide access for dogs in restaurants. There is also an ongoing debate of a too flexible and uncontrollable approach of "service animals," proliferating in great numbers, especially in San Francisco (URL upd. 06/26), who are often confused with rigorously trained guide dogs. San Francisco also now amended its Health Code (URL upd. 06/26), by adding Article 39, which codified a "commercial dog walker," which is in effect since April 21, 2013. How all these developments affect the landlord-tenant relationship?

Employer's Bond To Appeal Labor Commissioner's Decisions - Mandatory or Not?

Not everyone works a 4-hour workweek, but all those who work some finite periods of time may wonder, when does the time worked starts counting toward the overtime. In California, a straightforward response would be, after 8 hours per day or after 40 hours per week. But not everything is straightforward, and the overtime may come sooner just as well as it may come later in the workday or workweek. In other words, "it depends."

Rescind, Surrender, And Cancel. Courts' Handling Of Leases.

I recently had to ask a clerk of the San Francisco Superior Court to enter a default judgment "for possession only" in an eviction case. The procedure does not require many steps to comply with, but this time I talked the details over with the clerk, and left very glad that I did, because I accidentally discovered that the SF Court follows an ancient tradition of physically canceling an original instrument, the lease agreement.

Access to UK Caselaw And Beyond

If you need to look up a case decided in United Kingdom, try this free database. While there, look at the right column, entitled "World Law Resources," it has links to a collection of world jurisdictions.

Similarities Between Landlord-Tenant and Employer-Employee Relationships

Since I primarily practice litigation in these two fields, real property and labor law, it has caught my eye that the rights and obligations of the parties in rental and employment contexts have many similarities. To see just a few, consider the holdings I highlighted in this post.

When You Hear "S.O.S.," Listen Between The Lines. Landlords See More of The "Season of Sharing."

An eviction for "nonpayment of rent" used to be considered as a more predictable, straightforward kind of an unlawful detainer action, especially when compared against evictions for more sophisticated causes, like nuisance or breach of an obligation other than a payment of rent. But, since the only constant we can rely on is the change [Heraclitus], the change is here and the easiness is no more. "'Tis the Season" say some of the tenants, who fell behind in paying rent, and they don't mean Christmas. They cry "S.O.S.," aka "Season of Sharing," and want landlords to accept their offer without reading the small print. But let us take a closer look.

In re: Christmas Trees

In the spirit of this season, I want to share a short post on the subject of Christmas trees. Decorating a tree seems to be an ancient tradition, predating Christ himself, and a custom of having a Christmas Tree also seems to exist for several centuries, yet the appearance of Christmas celebration in the US law is not that old--the oldest cases I was able to find only date back to 1879.

In Leasing an "In-Law" Apartment Don't Be "In Pari Delicto" - Beware of an Exception for Legal Enforcement of Illegal Contracts

Leasing an "unwarranted" unit contains inherent risks: recent court cases often treat such lease agreements as illegal contracts, a finding leading to a set of scary, but possible discussions, ranging from such lease being simply unenforceable to a claim for restitution of back rents. A question then naturally arises, what can be done with an illegal contract, and are there any exceptions or conditions for its enforcement. The basic rule is that the contracting parties are both "in pari delicto" and neither can enforce the contract or recover therefrom. There is, however, an exception developed in California, which still lets one side to such allegedly illegal contract to recover from the other. An exception itself is not new, but its application to "illegal" leases developed more recently.

Update 03-07-14: San Francisco pilot program for legalizing in-law apartments got approved at the Planning Commission level.
Update 04-07-14: Board of Supervisors approves the pilot program
Update 02-21-16: Decision in Chen v Kraft invalidated a lease with an unlawful object, under CC § 1598.