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

2,485 chars

11
However, David is a minor without capacity to enter into a rental contract or to
incur an independent obligation to pay rent. (Fam. Code § 6701 [―A minor cannot do any
of the following: . . . (b) Make a contract relating to real property or any interest
therein.‖].) Thus, he could not have acquired a legally cognizable right to occupy Unit
308A to the exclusion of others pursuant to any of the methods set forth in section
37.2(t). This does not mean that David is not a lawful occupant, but only that his right to
occupy is derivative of the rights of his parents. (See, e.g., Birke v. Oakwood Worldwide
(2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1540, 1551 [minor child of tenant has the ―right to enjoyment of
the premises as a member of the tenant[‘s] family‖].)
Defendants argue that the complaint allegation acknowledging that David
occupies Unit 308A pursuant to Nancy‘s written lease agreement establishes that David
―is a tenant under the Rent Ordinance because he is a lawful occupant of the premises.‖
The lower courts reached similar conclusions. Without discussion, the trial court found
that David is entitled to a relocation payment because he ―has a right to occupy the
premises with his parents/grandmother.‖ The appellate panel also found that ―the
definition in section 37.2(t) clearly states that a person is a tenant so long as they are
entitled to occupy the premises.‖ In fact, though, section 37.2(t) does not state that every
lawful occupant of the premises is a tenant, but rather that a tenant is a lawful occupant
who acquired the right to exclusive occupancy in one of the specified ways.
Considering the Rent Ordinance as a whole reinforces the conclusion that ―lawful
occupant‖ and ―tenant‖ are not interchangeable terms. According to plaintiff‘s
calculations, the Rent Ordinance uses the word ―occupants‖ about 40 times and the word
―tenant‖ hundreds of times. For our purposes, we focus on three examples.
First, as previously noted, section 37.9(a) restricts the grounds for evicting a tenant
by specifying when a landlord may endeavor to recover a rental unit. One proper ground
for pursuing an eviction is when the tenant has violated a lawful obligation or covenant of
the tenancy. (Rent Ordinance, § 37.9(a)(2).) However, there are several qualifications
for pursuing this type of eviction, depending on the nature of the covenant at issue. For
example, when a rental agreement ―limits the number of occupants or limits or prohibits

Other Sections in This Document (44)

Full Text