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

1,464 chars

8      On January 13, 2022 the Board requested we augment the
record to include the trial court’s February 26, 2021 minute order
(entered on the date of the judgment), which explained that the
judgment resolved Hirschfield’s claim for declaratory relief as to
all four units. We granted the Board’s motion. As stated in the
February 26 order, Hirschfield argued the trial court’s statement
of decision failed to resolve the entirety of his cross-complaint
because he sought a declaration that all four of his Marine Street
properties were exempt from rent control. The trial court
rejected this argument, finding the court’s conclusion that
separately alienable rental units are subject to recontrol under
section 7060.2(d) “resolved the parties’ controversy,” and “[i]f
necessary, the parties may apply the facts to the Court’s ruling
with respect to the remaining three parcels.” Hirschfield does not
contend on appeal that the judgment did not fully resolve his
cross-complaint for declaratory relief.
9     On January 18, 2022, Cohen filed an application to join the
Board’s respondent’s brief as a real party in interest. After
inviting Cohen to submit authority supporting her application, on
January 24, 2022 we denied the application because Cohen’s
claims against Hirschfield remained pending and Cohen was not
a party to the judgment; therefore, Hirschfield properly omitted
Cohen as a respondent in this appeal. 10
                           DISCUSSION

Other Sections in This Document (50)

Full Text