Santa Monica Properties v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 203 Cal. App. 4th 739 (2012)

Citation: Santa Monica Properties v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 203 Cal. App. 4th 739 (2012)
Parent Document: Santa Monica Properties v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 203 Cal. App. 4th 739 (2012)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2012-02-16
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5810885/santa-monica-properties-v-santa... ↗

Full Text

1,376 chars

On July 1, 2009, SMP filed a request with the hearing examiner for a hearing on his compliance decision. SMP objected to the reinstatement of prior rents only as of June 1, 2009, arguing that the decrease in rents which had been ordered in the hearing examiner’s October 2008 decision “should be removed entirely” from the decision pursuant to section 1805(d)(ll).5 SMP’s apparent position was that rent should have been reinstated effective as of December 2008, not June 2009. As matters were viewed by SMP, the *747decision by RGB on appeal effectively reversed the hearing examiner’s rent reduction decision because the original decision had not given SMP the option of putting a timer on the hot tub, but rather, had required SMP to heat the hot tub 12 hours every day. Tenant Salvatore also filed a request for a hearing on the hearing examiner’s compliance decision; she claimed that SMP still had not complied with RGB’s rent reduction decision because the hot tub was “not hot enough.” More specifically, Salvatore objected that the hot tub with the new timer would only reach “100° F” while the “recommended . . . temperature for therapeutic use [is] between 104° to 107° F.” On July 8, 2009, the hearing examiner sent letters to both parties stating that no hearing would be held on their objections to his compliance decision. The Writ Proceeding in the Trial Court

Other Sections in This Document (60)

Full Text