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

2,262 chars

15
occupancy and the other addressing the rights of a minor child. As discussed below,
these cases are not directly on point, and, to the extent they are relevant, they reinforce
the conclusions outlined above.
1. Lawful Occupancy
Defendants posit that the fact David cannot be a party to a lease agreement does
not preclude him from qualifying as a tenant under the Rent Ordinance because case law
establishes that a lawful occupant of a San Francisco rental unit can be a tenant entitled to
Rent Ordinance protection even absent an agreement to pay rent. (Citing Parkmerced
Co. v. San Francisco Rent Stabilization & Arbitration Bd. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 490
(Parkmerced)).)
In Parkmerced, supra, 215 Cal.App.3d 490, Clarence Honey rented a San
Francisco apartment pursuant to a 1976 lease agreement. In 1981, Honey‘s sister, Margot
Abenheim, moved into the apartment with Honey. From 1981 until 1985, Honey
renewed his lease annually and listed Abenheim‘s name on the renewal. During this
entire period, Abenheim used her own personal check to pay monthly rent for the
apartment. Then, in 1985, Honey moved out. The landlord issued a new lease in
Abenheim‘s name, informing her that she could remain in the apartment only if she
agreed to a rent increase that was higher than the maximum amount of allowable rent the
landlord could charge a continuing tenant protected by the Rent Ordinance. (Id. at
p. 492.) The Rent Board found Abenheim was a tenant under the Ordinance‘s general
definition of that term, and that the proposed rent increase was not authorized because it
exceeded the lawful limits imposed by pertinent rent control provisions of the Ordinance.
The superior court disagreed with the Rent Board, finding that the new rental rate was
authorized because Abenheim first became a tenant when she incurred the obligation to
pay rent by signing her own lease agreement after Honey vacated the apartment. (Id. at
p. 494.) However, the judgment was reversed on appeal.
The Parkmerced appellate court found that Abenheim was already a tenant
protected by the rent increase limitations of the Ordinance when the landlord generated a
new lease agreement purporting to raise Abenheim‘s rent after Honey moved out of the

Other Sections in This Document (44)

Full Text