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, 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.

Constitutionality of the requirement for a life-time lease as condition for condo conversion was upheld

In July of last year, TIC co-owners of a multi-unit building in San Francisco sued against the ordinance provisions requiring a lifetime lease to be offered to those tenants who reside in the units subjected to a condominium conversion. Case 3:17-cv-03638, Pakdel et al v. City and County of San Francisco (2017 WL 6403074), filed before the Northern District of California federal district court.

The court granted City's motion to dismiss (Docket # 25, 11/20/2017). Of interest to other practitioners, in its relevant portion (page 10), the court found the requirement of offering a lifetime lease constitutional, as one passing the rational basis review standard. The requirement itself is found in Sec. 1396.4(g) of the San Francisco Subdivision Code.

The case is currently pending appeal, opening brief filed on April 28, 2018. Appeals' Case Number 17-17504.