Danger Panda, LLC v. Launiu, 10 Cal. App. 5th 502 (2017)

Citation: Danger Panda, LLC v. Launiu, 10 Cal. App. 5th 502 (2017)
Parent Document: Danger Panda, LLC v. Launiu, 10 Cal. App. 5th 502 (2017)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2017-04-04
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4380722/danger-panda-llc-v-launiu/ ↗

Full Text

2,446 chars

3
(c) Diminishes or enhances any power in any public entity to mitigate any adverse impact
on persons displaced by reason of the withdrawal from rent or lease of any
accommodations.‖ (See generally Pieri v. City and County of San Francisco (2006) 137
Cal.App.4th 886 (Pieri).) The present appeal arises out of a dispute about who is entitled
to receive a relocation assistance payment under Rent Ordinance, section 37.9A(e).
       B. Relocation Assistance for Ellis Act Evictions
       The nature and scope of the relocation assistance benefit conferred by section
37.9A has evolved over time pursuant to multiple Rent Ordinance amendments, of which
we highlight only a few. As originally enacted, subdivision (f) of section 37.9A (former
section 37.9A(f)) provided that the ―tenants of any rental unit‖ who were evicted under
section 37.9(a)(13) were entitled to payment of a fixed sum before they vacated the unit.
(Ord. No. 193-86, File No. 109863, supra, p. 14.) The amount of the payment the
landlord was required to make depended on the size of the rental unit, although units with
elderly or disabled renters were entitled to a higher payment. (Ibid.)
       In September 1994, the board of supervisors approved an amendment to former
section 37.9A(f) that limited ―payment of relocation assistance to tenants in lower income
households.‖ (Ord. No. 320-94, File No. 979413 (Sept. 7, 1994), p. 1, capitalization
omitted.) Payments under this version of former section 37.9A(f) were expressly referred
to as ―relocation payments‖ and were expressly limited to ―tenants who are members of
lower income households, who are elderly, or who are disabled . . . .‖ (Id. at p. 5.) An
elderly or disabled tenant was entitled to a higher fixed payment. Payments that were due
for a unit that was occupied by more than one tenant were to ―be divided equally among
all the occupying tenants, excluding those tenants‖ who were entitled to separate
payments due to their elderly or disabled status. (Id. at pp. 6-7.)
       In December 1999, the board of supervisors passed an ordinance that increased
―the amount of relocation payments made by landlords to low-income tenants evicted
pursuant to the Ellis Act . . . .‖ (Ord. No. 5-00, File No. 992236 (Dec. 20, 1999), p. 1,
capitalization omitted.) Pertinent provisions were amended to provide that ―Tenants who
are members of lower income households . . . and who receive a notice to quit based upon

Other Sections in This Document (44)

Full Text