Erwin v. City of San Diego

• Decision Date: 14 July 1952
• Citation: 112 Cal.App.2d 213,246 P.2d 105
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: ERWIN v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO et al. Civ. 4277.

Page 105

246 P.2d 105

112 Cal.App.2d 213

ERWIN v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO et al.

Civ. 4277.

District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, California.

July 14, 1952.

Wright, Thomas, Dorman & Fox, San Diego, for appellant.

J. F. DuPaul, City Atty., and Alan M. Firestone, Deputy City Atty., San Diego, for respondents.

MUSSELL, Justice.

Plaintiffs and cross-defendants appeal from a judgment in favor of cross-complainants and respondents in an action for declaratory relief and injunction.

Plaintiffs Robert E. Hoffman and wife were the lessees and operators of premises known as the Leland Hotel in the city of San Diego. The hotel is situated in a business building of three stories and occupies one-half of the second floor and the entire third floor of the building. There are thirty-one single sleeping rooms for rent as guest rooms, which were and are rented by the day, week or month. A substantial number of the occupants of the rooms were permanent or semi-permanent guests who pay rent on a monthly basis, substantially less than the daily or weekly rate. The services provided by the management are: supplying of linens, towels, bedspreads and blankets and cleaning of rooms for guests staying less than seven days. Linens only are furnished permanent guests. Two community laundries and three community kitchens are provided by the management for the convenience of hotel guests. The community kitchens are each in separate and distinct rooms and are not directly connected with the guest rooms. Each community kitchen is equipped with cooking units, refrigerators, sinks, tables and individual food lockers for use of guests utilizing these conveniences.

On or about September 29, 1949, defendants served notices on plaintiffs, stating that the maintenance of said community kitchens in the Leland Hotel constituted operation of the premises as an apartment and was in violation of the State Housing Act. Plaintiffs were threatened by said notices with prosecution and condemnation of said premises as unsanitary and unfit for human habitation.

On October 11, 1949, plaintiffs, Robert E. Hoffman and Mary J. Hoffman brought the present action for a declaration of their rights under said act and for injunctive relief. Later Ambrose Erwin was by order of this court substituted in the place and stead of said plaintiffs as plaintiff, cross-defendant and appellant in said cause. Defendants answered and filed a cross-complaint alleging, among other things, that the said premises consist of the upper two stories of a three story structure, which portion is rented by plaintiffs for occupation as a home to more than three families, each family living and sleeping in a separate room or suite of rooms and cooking within the structure; that plaintiffs have failed to install or provide baths or showers as required by section 17551 of the State Housing Act and have failed to install or provide any kitchen sink within any of the apartments on the premises, thus violating section 17580 of said act; that plaintiffs permit members of families who make their homes in said premises to cook and prepare food in certain rooms which plaintiffs call 'community kitchens', contrary to the provisions of section 17700 of said act and have failed to provide or install a water closet within each apartment in violation of section 17501 of said act. The prayer of the cross-complaint is that the court order plaintiffs to provide all facilities, sanitary or otherwise, which are required by law for an apartment house or be enjoined from operating said premises as an apartment house.

The trial court found, in substance, that the plaintiffs are the operators and lessees of an apartment house known as the Leland Hotel; that cooking and dining facilities are provided and used as community kitchens by ten or more families who occupy apartments in said apartment house; that the plaintiffs failed and refused to install and provide therein sanitary facilities required by law for apartment houses and did not provide kitchen sinks within each apartment of said premises, as required by law, and did not provide a sufficient number of bathtubs and showers in said premises.

In the modified judgment, from which this appeal is taken, it was ordered that the plaintiffs be enjoined and restrained from occupying and operating the said premises as an apartment house unless and until they have installed therein at least one kitchen sink within each apartment of said premises. The injunction was made effective on June 30, 1951, if plaintiffs had not installed said kitchen sinks on or before that date.

Appellants contend that the installation of a kitchen sink within each single sleeping room of the Leland Hotel would serve no practical purpose, is not a technical requirement contemplated by the legislature, and that the Leland Hotel is not an apartment but is a hotel under the provisions of the Health and Safety Code.

Respondents contend that the...