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

1,604 chars

6
payment.7 On March 27, plaintiff submitted a ―Notice of Intent to Withdraw Residential
Units from the Rental Market‖ to the Rent Board, and it subsequently served defendants
with copies of that notice. In a letter dated April 4, 2014, Nancy informed plaintiff that
she was entitled to a one-year extension of the withdrawal of Unit 308A from the rental
market due to her senior status.8 On April 10, plaintiff sent letters to Nancy and the Rent
Board recognizing that Nancy‘s extension claim was valid and stating that Unit 308A
would not be withdrawn from the rental market until March 27, 2015. Plaintiff also sent
Nancy a check for $1,755.03, as payment of the first half of the additional relocation
payment Nancy was owed due to her senior status. However, on March 27, 2015, and
thereafter, defendants and David failed to vacate Unit 308A.
       Relying on these general allegations, plaintiff alleged that it complied with all
lawful provisions of the Ellis Act and the Rent Ordinance, and was therefore entitled to
recover possession of its property from defendants and to damages for the fair market
rental value of the premises. After plaintiff made multiple attempts to serve defendants
personally with the summons and unlawful detainer complaint, the court authorized
service by posting and mailing.
       B. The Motion to Quash
       On May 20, 2015, defendants filed a motion to quash service of the summons and
wrongful detainer complaint. Among other things, defendants argued that plaintiff did
not comply with section 37.9A(e)(3) of the Rent Ordinance because it failed to provide

Other Sections in This Document (44)

Full Text