During these challenging times, Severson & Werson remains open and in full operation, consistent with the firm’s previously established contingency planning. While many of our attorneys and staff will be working remotely, as a firm, we continue in full operation. We are here to help, as always.


Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

So long as the landlord does not contract with them and does not demand or accept rent from them, the landlord need not let subtenants cure the tenant's rent default.  Accordingly, the landlord's 3-day notice to quit served on the subtenants was proper though it did not offer them the alternative of curing the tenant's rent default.  Also, under San… Read More

CCP 1161.3 provides that a landlord may not terminate a tenancy for (among other things) domestic violence committed against the tenant or a member of the tenant's household so long as the domestic violence is documented by, among other alternatives, a police report.  Over a dissent, this opinion holds that the statute provides a defense to an unlawful detainer action… Read More

This decision affirms a $2.7 million judgment in favor of two tenants against new landlords that harassed the tenants and then wrongfully evicted them in a fake owner move-in all in violation of San Francisco's rent control ordinance.  The ordinance provides for treble damages for violations like these, but the trial court properly exercised its discretion to reduce the trebled… Read More

Defendant instituted a policy requiring public housing tenants to post a $180 deposit to commence water service whereas all others needed only a $55 deposit.  Plaintiff sued, claiming disparate impact discrimination in housing.  To make a prima facie case on that claim, plaintiffs had to (1) the existence of a policy, not a one-time decision, that is outwardly neutral; (2)… Read More

Hom entered into a lease with tenant.  The lease granted extensive rights to lenders to tenant, including performing tenant's obligations and assuming its rights under the lease.  Tenant sued Hom who cross-complained against tenant and Petrou, a lender to tenant.  As part of his settlement with tenant, Hom dismissed his cross-complaint against Petrou as well.  Petrou was awarded attorney fees… Read More

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for an attorney fee award on the ground that neither party had prevailed in the action.  Plaintiff tenant sued his landlord, asked the jury to award him $200,000 but recovered a jury verdict of only $6,450.  In view of plaintiff's recovery of such a small percentage of the… Read More

Reconciling Delta Imports, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 1033 and Borsuk v. Appellate Division (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 607, this decision holds that a defendant in an unlawful detainer action may bring a motion to quash the special 5-day unlawful detainer summons on the ground that the complaint either alleges a claim entirely different from an unlawful detainer claim… Read More

While a landlord can give the tenant more than the 3 days' notice that CCP 1161(2) requires (and must do so if the lease so requires), if the eviction is for non-payment of rent, the notice (for however long a period) must state the amount of the rent due, and the name and address of the person to whom it… Read More

Under San Francisco's rent control ordinance, a “landlord” to evict renters from a unit to make the unit available for a close relative of the landlord.  The ordinance defines "landlord" for this purpose as a natural person.  Here, the property was held in the name of a revocable living trust, not a natural person.  However, the decision holds that the… Read More

Before 2011, one person owned both of two adjoining lots.  Tenants on one of the lots used portions of the adjoining lot for access, parking, and garbage removal, and as a garden.  After 2011, different lenders foreclosed on the two lots, separating their ownership.  Plaintiff bought one of the lots and sued to keep the tenants of the other lot… Read More

1 2 3 4