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

2,516 chars

17
written lease agreement. Indeed, that fact is reflected in section 37.2(t), which states that
a tenant can obtain the right to exclusive possession via a written agreement, oral
agreement, sub tenancy approved by the landlord or suffrage. (Rent Ordinance,
§ 37.2(t).) However, Parkmerced does not support defendants‘ very different contention
that David is a tenant notwithstanding the fact that he is a minor. In Parkmerced, the
original tenant‘s sister was an adult. Therefore, the case did not consider the question we
address here. Furthermore, the Parkmerced court found that Abenheim became a tenant
in her own right because she was named in lease ―applications‖ that were incorporated
into the written leases, and because she incurred an independent obligation to pay rent by
operation of law based on her occupancy accompanied by the landlord‘s consent.
(Parkmerced, at pp. 494-495.) Those findings cannot be made with respect to David
because he is a minor with no independent obligation to pay rent.
Aside from Parkmerced, defendants contend that a ―long and uncontroverted line
of appellate authority‖ establishes that the Rent Ordinance definition of a tenant ―includes
all lawful occupants of the dwelling.‖ But the cases they cite do not support this claim.
For example, defendants rely on Aguierre v. Lee (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1646, 1653
(Aguierre), for the proposition that ―[t]he Ordinance focuses on occupancy as the factor
that triggers rent control protection. [Citation.]‖ In that case, a San Francisco tenant was
displaced temporarily from her leased residential unit due to earthquake damage. After
making the necessary repairs, the landlord leased the unit to a third party in violation of
the rights of the tenant. In the landlord‘s appeal from a jury verdict in favor of the tenant,
the Aguierre court rejected the argument that the displaced tenant was not protected by
the Rent Ordinance because the ordinance only protects tenants in occupancy. Nothing
the court said supports defendants‘ contention in this case that all lawful occupants of a
rental unit are by definition tenants under section 37.2(t) of the Rent Ordinance.
Defendants contend Cobb v. San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization &
Arbitration Bd. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 345 (Cobb), illustrates that the Rent Ordinance
definition of a tenant includes ―occupancies created by consent and acceptance of rent.‖
It is not clear why defendants believe this proposition is relevant, particularly in light of

Other Sections in This Document (44)

Full Text