Naylor

INTRODUCTION

Petitioners raise two arguments for why the trial court erred by denying their Motion to Quash

Service of Summons and First Amended Complaint. Their primary contention is that the court should

have granted the motion because Hirsch did not provide Petitioners with proper notice of their re-rental

rights under § 37.9A(c) of the San Francisco Rent Ordinance. As described below, we resolve this

apparently novel question in favor of Hirsch on the basis that Petitioners ask us to interpret the Rent

Ordinance to require an obligation on the part of owners that its language does not support.

As for Petitioners‟ other argument, we conclude (1) that Hirsch complied with §

37.9A(f)(4)(E)(i) by informing the San Francisco Rent Board that he recognizes the extended

termination date claimed by Petitioners and (2) that Hirsch complied with § 37.9A(f)(4)(E)(iii) by

notifying the Rent Board that he had extended the termination dates of all of the residential units at the

property. Petitioners point to no authority indicating that Hirsch was obligated to do more in order to

comply with either of those requirements. We do not address Petitioners‟ arguments on these…