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

2,042 chars

16
apartment, explaining: ―Since 1981 Parkmerced was aware of, and by its silence agreed
to, Abenheim living in the apartment with her brother. Each year Honey submitted to
Parkmerced an application for lease rental which listed Abenheim as an occupant of the
apartment; pursuant to paragraph 25 of Parkmerced‘s lease these applications were
incorporated into Honey‘s leases. Thus, because Abenheim was entitled to occupy the
unit pursuant to a written agreement—Honey‘s leases—she falls squarely within the
purview of section 37.2(r).‖12 (Parkmerced, supra, 215 Cal.App.3d at p. 494, italics
omitted.)
       In reaching its conclusion, the Parkmerced court faulted the trial court for
―ignor[ing] the fact that the ordinance protects those who legally occupy a rental unit,
regardless of the basis of the person‘s obligation to pay rent.‖ (Parkmerced, supra, 215
Cal.App.3d at p. 494.) The Parkmerced court also disagreed with the lower court‘s
summary conclusion that Abenheim had no obligation to pay rent until she signed her
own rental agreement in 1985. (Id. at p. 495.) Citing authority recognizing that an
obligation to pay rent can arise by operation of law based on occupancy accompanied by
the owner‘s consent, the Parkmerced court rejected the notion that without a written
lease, Abenheim could not have had an obligation to pay rent. (Ibid.) Finally, the
Parkmerced court found that ―interpreting the Rent Ordinance to extend protection to
tenants based on legitimate occupancy is in keeping with the purpose of the legislation.‖
(Ibid.) The court reasoned that a ―clear objective‖ of the Rent Ordinance was to extend
― ‗some measure of protection to tenants in residence‘ [citation]‖ and that there was
―absolutely no indication that this protection was intended to be limited to those tenants
who sign formal lease agreements.‖ (Ibid.. italics omitted.)
       As defendants contend, Parkmerced, supra, 215 Cal.App.3d 490, demonstrates
that an occupant of a San Francisco rental unit can qualify as a tenant without having a

Other Sections in This Document (44)

Full Text