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

1,298 chars

17
dwellings12 from rent control “[n]otwithstanding any other
provision of law.” (Civ. Code, §1954.52, subd. (a)(3)(A).)
       Hirschfield contends an interpretation of section 7060(d) of
the Ellis Act to apply its limits on replacement of demolished
rent-controlled units to new single-family dwellings places the
Ellis Act in direct conflict with the Costa-Hawkins Act. In
making this argument, Hirschfield highlights that section
7060.2(d) includes an express exemption for new construction,
stating recontrol of demolished accommodations applies
“notwithstanding any exemption from the system of controls for
newly constructed accommodations,” while remaining silent as to
single-family dwellings. As Hirschfield argues, “If the Rent
Board’s position were correct . . . [t]he [L]egislature could have
simply omitted the final clause of the operative provision so that
single family dwellings would be automatically included within
the sweep of section 7060.2(d) . . . .”
       Construing the Ellis and Costa-Hawkins Acts together, as
we must, given that they address the same subject matter (Law
Finance Group, LLC v. Key, supra, 67 Cal.App.5th at p. 317), we
conclude section 7060.2(d) is ambiguous with respect to whether
it applies to the replacement of rent-controlled units with single-

Other Sections in This Document (50)

Full Text