Brown v. Upside Gading, LP

Filed 10/17/19; Certified for Publication 11/18/19 (order attached)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

SHEILLA BROWN, Plaintiff and Respondent, A157685 v. UPSIDE GADING, LP, et al., (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG18928503) Defendants and Appellants.

This is an appeal in a landlord–tenant class action from a trial court order invalidating the broad releases of claims signed by approximately 26 tenant putative class members and requiring the parties to meet and confer regarding a corrective notice for the putative class after the court found said releases contained misleading and one-sided information regarding the underlying lawsuit. Plaintiff Sheilla Brown brought this action on behalf of herself and other similarly situated persons against defendants Upside Gading, LP and Upside Management Company, Inc. (Upside) for alleged violations of the City of Hayward’s Residential Rent Stabilization and Tenant Protection Ordinance (ordinance). According to plaintiff, a tenant in low-income, rent-controlled housing owned and managed by Upside, Upside claimed an exemption to the ordinance based upon misleading information and thereafter imposed upon the often non-English- speaking tenant putative class members illegal rent increases, charged them excessive late

fees, and failed to pay required security deposit interest in violation of local and state laws. 1 After Upside representatives approached the tenant putative class members in the evening in their respective units with pre-written releases from the class action 2 that contained misleading, coercive and inadequate information, along with pre-written checks as “compensation” for past rent increases and other payments, plaintiffs sought and obtained the trial court order dated June 19, 2019, that is at the heart of this appeal. 3 After Upside appealed this order, this court stayed briefing and ordered Upside to submit a letter brief either requesting to dismiss this appeal or explaining why this court

1 For the purposes of this opinion, it is not necessary to set forth the extended procedural or factual background of this case. 2 The contents of Upside’s releases and other communications with the putative class members were described in declarations submitted by the parties in connection with plaintiffs’ Motion to Limit Defendants’ Class Communications and for Corrective Actions, and are largely undisputed. 3 The releases presented to the tenants contained in part the following language: “ ‘Tenant and Landlord have reached a full and complete settlement of the Released Claims,’ . . . mean[ing] that the tenants ‘individually, and on behalf of their respective agents, attorneys, representatives, heirs, family members’ and other related parties, ‘hereby release[], acquit[] and forever, absolutely and unconditionally, discharge[] Landlord and all of its agents, contractors, subcontractors, attorney,’ and other representatives, ‘of and from any and all actions, causes of action, claims, demands, rights, injuries, debts, obligations, liabilities, contracts, duties, damages, costs, attorneys’ fees, expenses or losses of every kind . . . that accrued at any time prior to execution of this Agreement . . . whether known or unknown, anticipated or unanticipated, direct or indirect, fixed or contingent,’ ‘arising from any matter, cause or thing, whatsoever occurred, done or omitted, including without any limitation, any claims under Tenant’s lease and other claims for (1) rent abatement, (2) reimbursement of rental charges, (3) any claims relating to late fees charged . . . , (4) any claims relating to any alleged violations of the HUD Use Agreement, and (5) any claims arising from any alleged violation of the [ordinance].’ ” Translated copies of the releases were not provided to the non-English-speaking tenants.