Small Property Owners v. City & County of San Francisco

Good Law
141 Cal. App. 4th 1388·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1229·2006 Daily Journal DAR 10479·47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 121·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7336
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 9, 2006A108924California8,092 words

Opinion

Opinion

Reardon, J.

Small Property Owners of San Francisco, Jess Pacías, Dan A. Evans, and John Lockley, on behalf of themselves and a class of San Francisco landlords, appeal from a judgment entered after trial. The trial court ruled that an ordinance of respondent City and County of San Francisco (City), which required landlords to pay tenants interest on security deposits at a rate of 5 percent, did not effect a taking under the California Constitution or the United States Constitution. Appellants contend that the court erred in this conclusion and, in reaching its decision, erred in taking judicial notice of credit card interest rates. In addition, appellants argue that the court abused its discretion in requiring them to provide notice of the adverse judgment to class members by mail.

In the published portion of this opinion, we conclude that the ordinance did not effect a taking. In the unpublished portion, we determine that the judgment should be modified in regard to the notice of the judgment to the class. As so modified, the judgment will be affirmed.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Beginning in September 1983, San Francisco Administrative Code section 49.2 (Ordinance) required…

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.