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.

$1.7 million default judgment is possible, even after a 473(b) motion.

Obtaining a default judgment is not easy. And if the judgment debtor later moves to set default and a judgment aside, especially if done on "mandatory" grounds of attorney's mistake [CCP 473(b)], courts often read it as equally a mandatory requirement to grant the requested relief. Often, but not always. This recent case presents a rare situation, when a simple act of submitting a declaration with an acknowledgement of fault did not help. The case is even more unique because of its facts: the judgment at stake was for a significant amount of $1.7 million, and the party asking to set it aside submitted not one, but several declarations regarding its attorney's fault.

Verification on behalf of a dissolved or non-existent corporation

Can a non-existent or a dissolved corporation verify its discovery responses? Even if there is no human agent or officer left around? Court in a recent decision in Melendrez v. Los Angeles Sup. Ct. (In re: Special Electric Co.), 215 Cal.App.4th 1343 (2013), says "yes" and comes up with no less than three alternative solutions.