Roth

Roth v. Rhodes

Bad Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 529·25 Cal. App. 4th 530·30 Cal. Rptr. 2d 706·30 Cal. Rptr. 706·94 Daily Journal DAR 7372
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 31, 1994G013651California5,814 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rylaarsdam, J.

May operators of medical buildings limit acceptable tenants to medical doctors or do statutory or common law prohibitions require them to lease space to other health care practitioners, in this instance, a podiatrist, or even the world at large? We conclude under the facts presented here, no legal requirement compels landlords to accept tenants who are not medical doctors.

Respondents Frank A. Rhodes, Gene Rhodes, Susan Rhodes, Rhodes Development Company, and Newport Center Medical Buildings (Rhodes or the Rhodes respondents) operate medical buildings in Newport Beach. According to the allegations of the complaint and as acknowledged by them, the Rhodes respondents only lease space to persons holding M.D. degrees. Appellants Ivar Roth and Ivar E. Roth, Podiatric Corporation (Roth) predicate all causes of action asserted in the complaint upon a refusal of Rhodes to rent space to Roth because of Rhodes’s policy only to lease space to holders of M.D. degrees. Roth is not a medical doctor; he holds the degree of doctor of podiatric medicine. Roth appeals from a judgment entered following the granting of motions for summary adjudication and judgment on the pleadings which…

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.