Johnson v. City and County of San Francisco

Good Law
137 Cal. App. 4th 7·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 274·2006 Daily Journal DAR 2414·40 Cal. Rptr. 3d 8·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1738
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 31, 2006A111355California4,458 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sepulveda, J.

Appellants Scott Johnson and Small Property Owners of San Francisco, Inc. (SPOSF), appeal a judgment in favor of respondents City and County of San Francisco and City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors (collectively, the City) after the trial court denied appellants’ petition for writ of mandate, concluding that a notice requirement in the City’s rental ordinance was not preempted by the Ellis Act (or Act) (Gov. Code, § 7060 et seq.). We reverse.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The San Francisco Administrative Code requires landlords who seek eviction under the Ellis Act to pay their tenants’ relocation costs; people with disabilities or who are 62 years old or older receive additional payments. (S.F. Admin. Code, § 37.9A, subd. (e)(3)(A)-(D).) Landlords also are required to notify their tenants about their right to receive payment and “the amount of payment which the landlord believes to be due.” (S.F. Admin. Code, § 37.9A, subd. (e)(4), italics added.) This so-called belief requirement is the only portion of the San Francisco Administrative Code that is at issue in this appeal.

Appellant Johnson owns an undivided interest in real property located at…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.