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

1,899 chars

8
amount was properly allocated among the tenants. The court found that the amount was
not properly allocated for the following reasons: (1) David was a tenant because he was
―entitled to occupy the premises‖; (2) David‘s status as a minor did not preclude him
from receiving a check; and (3) if plaintiff had ―properly divided the relocation payments
in to [sic] four checks, David and his parents would have received an additional $650.‖10
The appellate panel rejected plaintiff‘s contention that, even if the payments were not
properly allocated, plaintiff substantially complied with the Ellis Act. According to the
court, ―since the relocation payments and the definition of a tenant owed those payments
are expressly stated in the Ellis Act, the section must be strictly complied with.‖
       The appellate panel also rejected plaintiff‘s contention that the motion to quash
was barred by equitable estoppel. Plaintiff had argued that defendants were estopped to
contest the allocation of the relocation payment because they accepted plaintiff‘s checks
without objection, and if they had informed plaintiff of the issue regarding David‘s status,
plaintiff could have sent new checks long before the unlawful detainer complaint was
filed. In rejecting this equitable claim, the appellate panel found that the Ellis Act does
not impose any obligation on defendants to raise this issue with plaintiff, and that there
was insufficient evidence that defendants ―deposited the checks and intentionally
remained silent as to the relocation payments.‖
                                    IV. DISCUSSION
       A. Issue Presented
       The question presented to this court is whether a minor displaced by an Ellis Act
eviction is a tenant entitled to a relocation payment under section 37.9A(e)(3) of the Rent
Ordinance. ―[O]ur task ‗ ―is to determine the intent of the enacting body so that the law

Other Sections in This Document (44)

Full Text