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

1,960 chars

7
David with a separate relocation payment, notwithstanding the fact that he was a ―tenant‖
under the Rent Ordinance.9
       Opposing the motion to quash, plaintiff argued that it met its relocation payment
obligations to the tenants in Unit 308A by paying the maximum payment required by the
Rent Ordinance and dividing that amount among the three adult occupants of Unit 308A.
Plaintiff explained that David ―was not issued his own personal check as he is not an
adult able to contract with Plaintiff to occupy the Premise.‖ Thus, plaintiff took the view
that David was not a ―tenant‖ under the Rent Ordinance. Plaintiff further argued that if it
had provided David his own separate payment, the amounts paid to Nancy (the non-
parent) and Donn and Olga ―would have been unlawfully and improperly decreased, as
they would not have received their proper pro rata shares.‖ Thus, plaintiff maintained
that it complied with section 37.9A(e)(3) of the Rent Ordinance by ―paying the full
amount of relocation [payment] to the tenants,‖ and once ―the family‖ received that
maximum payment, they were free to divide the funds as they saw fit.
       C. Superior Court Orders
       On June 1, 2015, the trial court granted defendants‘ motion to quash service of the
summons and unlawful detainer complaint. In a brief order filed that day, the court
found: ―Plaintiff failed to tender a statutory relocation payment to defendants‘ minor
child David Launiu pursuant to Rent Ordinance § 37.9A(e)(3)(A), who was named in the
Notice of Termination of Tenancy and has a right to occupy the premises with his
parents/grandmother. This lowered the sum parents & minor child would have received
in total.‖
       On July 15, 2016, the appellate division of the superior court filed an order
affirming the superior court‘s ruling. The court clarified that the dispute was not about
whether plaintiff paid the correct total amount under the Ellis Act, but rather whether the

Other Sections in This Document (44)

Full Text