California Court of Appeal

In a wrongful eviction action, judgment in favor of plaintiffs-tenants concluding that defendants violated the San Francisco Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance is affirmed where: 1) defendants' interpretation of the Ordinance as conditioning a tenant's right to reoccupy the unit upon compliance with a 60-day notice is rejected; 2) substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding that the stipulation gave defendants temporary possession of the apartment for up to three months to make repairs and the plaintiffs retained their rights under the Ordinance to reoccupy the premises; 3) the litigation privilege did not apply to defendant's conduct in refusing to allow the plaintiffs to reoccupy the apartment; 4) trial court did not err in granting judgment on the pleadings on the affirmative defenses; and 5) trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding plaintiffs' attorney's fees.

Appellate Information

• Decided 02/09/2010
• Published 02/09/2010

Judges

• PER CURIAM., Before LANDAU, Presiding Judge, and BREWER, Chief Judge, and HASELTON, Judge.

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Erin Galli and Chilton & Galli, LLC, for appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and Jeremy C. Rice, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.