Hirschfield v. Cohen (2022)

Citation: Hirschfield v. Cohen (2022)
Parent Document: Hirschfield v. Cohen (2022)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2022-08-25
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7859842/hirschfield-v-cohen/ ↗

Full Text

1,633 chars

8
landlords from evicting their tenants under the false pretense of
going out of business pursuant to the Ellis Act,” a purpose that
would be frustrated if the Costa-Hawkins Act superseded
section 7060.2(d). (Apartment Association, at p. 27.)
       Here, the trial court reasoned that the analysis in
Apartment Association applied equally to the interplay between
section 7060.2(d) and the exemption for separately alienable
dwelling units in Civil Code section 1954.52,
subdivision (a)(3)(A): “To adopt [Hirschfield’s] argument, the
[c]ourt would take a position inconsistent with that taken by the
Court of Appeal in Apartment Association, and impose a
needlessly restrictive view of the Ellis Act. [Hirschfield’s]
position would thwart the Ellis Act’s prime objective—preventing
evictions based upon false pretenses. The Court does not believe
that position is warranted.” The trial court concluded, “[I]f a
landlord demolishes a residential rental unit and builds new
residential rental units on the same property, even if these new
units are separately alienable from the title to any other dwelling
unit, and rents these new units within five years, then these new
rental units are also subject to rent control law as set forth in
Gov. Code § 7060.2(d). Under the agreed upon facts of this case,
746 Marine Street would be subject to Santa Monica’s rent
control law.”
       On November 4, 2020, after receiving the parties’ objections
to the proposed statement of decision, the trial court issued a
modified and final statement of decision substantially adopting
the proposed statement of decision.7 On February 26, 2021 the

Other Sections in This Document (50)

Full Text