Santa Monica Rent Control Board v. Pearl Street, LLC

Good Law
109 Cal. App. 4th 1308·135 Cal. Rptr. 2d 903·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 923·2003 Daily Journal DAR 6867·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5444
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 20, 2003B157751California4,612 words

Opinion

Opinion

Croskey, J.

In this appeal, plaintiff, the Santa Monica Rent Control Board (the Board), challenges orders that (1) granted defendants’ special motion to strike the Board’s complaint, and (2) awarded defendants attorney’s fees and costs. Defendants are Pearl Street, LLC, a limited liability company, Rosario Perry, sued as manager of Pearl Street, LLC, and Robert Hackamack (Pearl Street, Perry, and Hackamack, collectively defendants).

The Board filed this suit for declaratory and injunctive relief because it contends that portions of state and local rent control law have been violated by defendants in their ownership or management of a four-unit residential rental property at 1028 Pearl Street in the City. Rental of such property is subject to article XVIII and to relevant provisions of state law.

This case concerns the Board’s skepticism about the nature of defendants’ rental of two of the four rental units. Specifically, the Board asserts defendants created sham tenancies to enable themselves to fulfill the letter of state rent control law while avoiding the economic constraints of the spirit of such law. That law provided that when a landlord withdrew a residential unit from the…

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.