Hill v. Flandrich CA1/2

Filed 3/3/15 Hill v. Flandrich CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

ANNLIA PAGANINI HILL, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN FRANCISCO CITY AND COUNTY, A143208 Respondent; (San Francisco City and County THERESA FLANDRICH, Super. Ct. No. CUD-14-648482) Real Party in Interest.

BY THE COURT:1 Petitioner Annlia Hill is a landlord attempting to exit the business of renting residential property in San Francisco pursuant to the Ellis Act; she is the plaintiff in separate unlawful-detainer actions against her long-time tenants Theresa Flandrich and Elaine Turner. Both cases were dismissed on August 26, 2014, after the appellate division of the superior court directed the trial judge to grant the tenants’ motions to quash service of Hill’s summonses and complaints. The appellate division concluded that Hill had violated section 37.9A(f)(4)(E)(iii) of the San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance (SFRO), which effectuates the Ellis Act,2 by failing to notify Flandrich and Turner that she had extended the date the other’s unit

1 Before Kline, P.J., Richman, J., and Miller, J. 2 Further references are to the SFRO.

1

would be withdrawn from the rental market. We conclude the appellate division misconstrued the ordinance. Accordingly, we shall issue a peremptory writ of mandate directing the appellate division to vacate its August 22, 2014 order granting Flandrich’s writ petition, and to enter a new and different order denying the petition.3 We grant the same relief in the separate case related to Turner. Hill owns a rent-controlled building situated at the corner of Stockton and Lombard Streets containing six residential apartments, two of which she occupies herself. In April 2013, she served notice on each of her four residential tenants that she intended to withdraw the building from the residential-rental market, and that they had 120 days to vacate the premises. Three of them, including Flandrich and Turner, claimed a statutory right to extend the 120-day period to a full year based upon their age or disability. Hill did not dispute their claims. Flandrich and Turner both remained past the April 2014 expiration of their extensions, prompting Hill to file complaints for unlawful detainer. Both tenants filed motions to quash under Delta Imports, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 1033, alleging that Hill failed to state a cause of action for unlawful detainer because she had not strictly complied with the SFRO in four discrete ways. Relevant to this petition, the motions alleged that Hill had violated the ordinance by failing to notify Flandrich that she had extended Turner’s deadline to vacate, and vice versa. After considering the parties’ briefing and holding a lengthy hearing, the trial court rejected all of the tenants’ arguments and denied their motions to quash. Each