A Right For Private Action For a New Public Enforcer - Pro-Tenant Non-Profits

In the heavily discussed and disputed legislation proposing regulation of short-term homesharing (facilitated via online services such as airbnb.com or vrbo.com, among others), one offered amendment proposes to give the ordinance some "teeth" by including an opportunity for pro-tenant non-profits to sue landlords for violations of this short-term vacationing ordinance. In other words, to have a citywide Private Attorney General Act, or, more appropriately labeled as a Private City Attorney Act.  We are yet to see if this proposal will fit the applicable state law on the subject. Comparing with the already existing enforcement schemes in the fields of disability discrimination (ADA) and employment (PAGA), there are several things are to consider:

Joint Liability of Tenants

It is not uncommon to encounter a situation when two or more original tenants under a single lease agreement would act differently, and then expect different treatment by the landlord. A non-defaulting co-tenant might want to disassociate from a defaulting one. And, sometimes, a defaulting tenant would like to take all the liability on his or her own, in an effort to save other co-tenants from being held liable alongside with the defaulter. The outcome for such intentions may be decided based on the text of the lease.

E-filing works in SF Superior Court

Since I wrote about the e-filing coming to San Francisco last October, many changes were proposed, and some were even made, and the system started working on a wide variety of cases on July 14. Yesterday, I tried it for myself and today my first ever state-court filing went live! You may want to give it a try, the water looks safe!

[UPDATE 11-6-14] E-filing becomes mandatory across the board in civil cases in this court, with very few exceptions, effective December 8, 2014. Three more vendors were approved on November 5 in addition to the previously sole vendor, File & Serve Xpress.

Drafting the Owner Move-In Notice in San Francisco

Termination of tenancy starts from drafting and serving the notice of such termination, and the importance of making that notice as accurate and complete as possible is hard to understate. If the notice is defective, the landlord most likely will have to go back to the square one, starting the whole process again by reissuing and reserving the notice. Sometimes, months will pass before the landlord finds out about the deficiency. It may become a very expensive mistake to learn.

This article concentrates on the elements of a notice of termination of tenancy on the grounds of owner's move-in, the so called "OMI notice." It has quite a few elements and steps to be concerned about.

ATTENTION: this article was published in 2014, and things have changed since. Commencing on January 1, 2018, significant changes in the OMI/RMI procedure came into force. Read more here.  This is a fluid area of local law, your diligence in checking with the latest version of the law currently in force is required.

A Lose-Lose Scenario: Changes In Rent Ordinance Regarding Ellis Act Treatment Appear To Be Counterproductive

Update 10-21-14: Federal District Court finds this ordinance unconstitutional, see judge Breyer's opinion as published on PACER (scribd copy), case No. 14-cv-03352-CRB.

A significant change in the treatment of the Ellis Act went into effect in San Francisco on June 1, 2014 (Ordinance No.54-14). It is no longer enough to just look up the current amount for the fixed relocation assistance payment. To calculate what is due to tenants vacating under the Ellis Act one now has to employ a formula to select the greater from the two options: either the fixed amount, or "an amount equal to the difference between the unit's rental rate at the time the landlord files the notice of intent to withdraw rental units with the Board, and the market rental rate for a comparable unit in San Francisco as determined by the Controller's Office, multiplied to cover a two-year period, and divided equally by the number of tenants in the unit." Section 37.9A(e)(3)(E)(ii). The funny part is in the math: lesser entitled tenants stand a higher chance to recover large payments.

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."

When Overtime May Be Due Over A Shorter (Longer) Time?

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."