Firm News, Bracamontes & Vlasak, P.C., San Francisco
♦ BV Law welcomes Jackie Ravenscroft to the firm as an Associate Attorney, December 2011.
♦ Vlasak earns six-figure settlement for San Francisco tenants infested with bed bugs, 2011.
♦ Ryan Vlasak with Dan Sharp secures quarter-million dollar settlement for Oakland pedestrian injured in a crosswalk, 2011.
♦ Vlasak authors Case Note on new San Francisco Rent Ordinance appellate decision, Larson v. CCSF, for the BASF Bulletin, May 2011.
♦ Michael Bracamontes and client, Timothy Hoyt, on Channel 7 news, I-Team report for excessive force case against San Francisco Police Department: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/iteam&id=7981821, February 2011.
♦ Ryan Vlasak publishes article in Consumer Attorneys of California, Forum, January/February 2011: "A Decision Procedure for Making and Evaluating CCP § 998 Offers to Compromise."
♦ Ryan Vlasak and Kristen Ross complete three week trial and win six figure jury verdict for San Francisco tenant in suit against landlord for nuisance and breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, December 2010.
♦ Ryan Vlasak and Michael Bracamontes named 2010 Attorneys of the Year by the San Francisco AIDS Legal Referral Panel (ALRP): http://www.alrp.org/downloads/ALRP%20Summer%202010%20Newsletter.pdf
♦ Law Clerk, Jackie Ravenscroft, and Ryan Vlasak publish article on new bridge tolls, carpooling, and driver liability in the Oakland Tribune, August 2010.
♦ Vlasak earns six figure settlement for San Francisco SRO tenant in lockout case, 2010.
♦ Bracamontes & Vlasak secures 1.95 million dollar settlement in personal injury and habitability case for San Francisco tenants, 2010.
♦ All Firm lawyers awarded Hero Awards by the San Francisco AIDS Legal Referral Panel (ALRP) for cases in 2009.
♦ Michael Bracamontes publishes article: "Understanding the Foreclosure Trend on the West Coast," Thomas Reuters/Aspatore, 2009.
♦ Kristen Ross' Note, "Eviction, Discrimination, and Domestic Violence: Unfair Housing Practices Against Domestic Violence Survivors", is cited in an opinion of a New York court, 2008.
Recent Law and Events
San Francisco Superior Court Changes Unlawful Detainer Department:
As of November 2011 all unlawful detainer matters and motions, except trial call, are heard in Department 501 in front of Judge Quidachay. That includes discovery motions in UD cases, as well as law and motion matters, such as demurrers and motions to strike.
The Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Prevention Act of 2010:
On May 7, 2010 Governor Schwarzenegger signed into California law the Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Prevention Act of 2010 (SB 183). This new law and addition to the California Health and Safety Code will help protect tenants and families by requiring owners to install carbon monoxide detectors in all dwelling units intended for human occupancy containing a fossil fuel burning heater or appliance, fireplace, or an attached garage. Carbon monoxide detectors shall be installed in single family homes on or before July 1, 2011, and in all other dwelling units, including hotels, condos, and multi-unit apartment buildings, on or before January 1, 2013.
Violations of the new Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Prevention Act will be infractions punishable by a maximum fine of two hundred dollars ($200) for each offense; however property owners will be given a 30-day notice to correct as a chance to avoid the fine. Local ordinances may be enacted as consistent with the new state law.
Health and Safety Code Section 17926.1 specifically applies the requirements of the Act to landlords who rent dwelling units to tenants. Landlords may enter units for purposes of installing or maintaining carbon monoxide detectors with notice pursuant to Section 1954 of the Civil Code. Pursuant to the Act, carbon monoxide devices shall be operable when the tenant takes possession of the unit.
New Restriction on Owner Move-ins in San Francisco:
On March 14, 2010, Ordinance No. 33-10 became law and added section 37.9(j) to the San Francisco Rent Ordinance, providing that a tenant who has resided in the unit for at least one year with a minor child may not be evicted during the school year for an owner or relative move-in eviction.
Although there are some exceptions, section 37.9(j) represents a potential new defense to an owner move-in eviction when a tenant has a custodial or family relationship with a minor residing in the premises.
Larson v. City and County of San Francisco, Case No.A125887 (CA Dist. 1 Ct. App, Feb. 23, 2011):
Proposition M (section 37.10B of the Rent Ordinance) was approved by San Francisco voters in November 2008 and amended the San Francisco Rent Ordinance to increase protections to tenants by augmenting the Rent Ordinance's anti-harassment provisions, making it unlawful and subject to severe penalty for a landlord in bad faith to engage in any one of fifteen enumerated prohibited acts, ranging from failure to exercise due diligence in making repairs, to refusing to cash a rent check within 30 days or requesting a tenant's citizenship status or social security number.
Proposition M also provided additional remedies and damages for aggrieved tenants, including the right to bring a decrease in services petition with the Rent Board for reduction in rent for its violation (37.10B(c)(1)) and a provision whereby all tenants prevailing in unlawful detainer actions would be awarded attorney's fees against the landlord (37.10B(c)(6)).
In Larson v. CCSF, the trial court upheld the decrease in services provision of Proposition M, but invalidated the attorney's fees provision.
On appeal, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's ruling that the tenant-only attorney's fees provision (37.10B(c)(6)) is unconstitutional in violating equal protection rights, and reversed the trial court's decision that had affirmed Proposition M's granting of authority to the Rent Board to award tenants reduction in rent as damages for Prop. M violations (37.10B(c)(1)).
Specifically, the Court of Appeal held that subdivision (a)(4) through (15) of 37.10B is facially invalid under the judicial powers clause in that it improperly invests the Rent Board with the judicial power to order rent reductions for what are essentially general damages stemming from harassment.
While tenants may still file decrease in services petitions with the Rent Board for violations of section 37.10B subdivision (a)(1)-(3)-for habitability defects-and be awarded a quantifiable, restitutive decrease in rent, after Larson, tenants will no longer be awarded damages in Rent Board petitions for tenant harassment based on violations of section 37.10B(a)(4)-(15).
Significantly, the Court of Appeal also held unconstitutional-as violative of free speech rights-Rent Ordinance § 37.10B(a)(7) in its entirety, which had prohibited landlords from continuing to offer tenants payments to vacate after tenants provide written notification that they do not wish to receive further offers.
Section 37.10B of the Rent Ordinance remains otherwise enforceable through civil actions in superior court.
To read the Larson opinion in full, see: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A125887.PDF.
