Hiona v. City of S.F.

• Decision Date: 06 May 2020
• Docket Number: A158693,A158695,A158689
• Citation: 262 Cal.Rptr.3d 371,48 Cal.App.5th 866
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Samuel E. HIONA et al., Petitioners, v. The SUPERIOR COURT OF the CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent; 2154 Taylor LLC, Real Party in Interest. Dennis A. Thompson et al., Petitioners, v. The Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, Respondent; 2154 Taylor LLC, Real Party in Interest. Ana Ganovic, Petitioner, v. The Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, Respondent; 2154 Taylor LLC, Real Party in Interest.

48 Cal.App.5th 866

262 Cal.Rptr.3d 371

Samuel E. HIONA et al., Petitioners,

v.The SUPERIOR COURT OF the CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent;

2154 Taylor LLC, Real Party in Interest.

Dennis A. Thompson et al., Petitioners,

v.The Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, Respondent;

2154 Taylor LLC, Real Party in Interest.

Ana Ganovic, Petitioner,

v.The Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, Respondent;

2154 Taylor LLC, Real Party in Interest.

A158689

A158693

A158695

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 5, California.

Filed May 6, 2020

Tenderloin Housing Clinic, Stephen Leonard Collier, Tyler Rougeau, San Francisco, and Raquel Fox, for Petitioners

No appearance for Respondent

Zacks, Freedman & Patterson, Andrew M. Zacks, Scott Ariel Freedman and Justin A. Goodman, San Francisco; Katz Appellate Law and Paul J. Katz, San Francisco, for Real Party in Interest

Jones, P. J.

In these consolidated petitions for a writ of mandate, we consider the following question: if an unlawful detainer (UD) action is filed as an unlimited civil case, and if the landlord waives its claim to damages for the purpose of obtaining a judgment for possession by way of a motion for summary judgment, should the action be reclassified as a limited civil case? Based on the plain language of Code of Civil Procedure section 403.040, subdivision (e), we conclude the trial court was not required to do so.¹

The petitioners are tenants Samuel E. Hiona, Cathleen J. Thompson,² Dennis A. Thompson, Beth Bledsoe, and Ana Ganovic (hereafter, Petitioners or Tenants). Landlord and real party in interest 2154 Taylor LLC (Landlord) filed UD actions against them under the Ellis Act. ( Gov. Code, § 7060 et seq. ) Landlord filed the actions as unlimited civil cases. Landlord brought summary judgment motions for restitution of the premises based on Tenants’ holdover after termination of their tenancies under the Ellis Act and applicable San Francisco rent ordinance provisions. After the motions for summary judgment were granted, Tenants moved to reclassify the actions as limited civil cases. The trial court denied the motions for reclassification and entered judgments for possession in favor of Landlord.

Tenants petition for a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its orders denying their motions to reclassify the UD actions as limited civil cases. We issued an order to show cause why the relief requested in the petitions should not be granted. On the merits, we deny the petitions.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Landlord owns a building in San Francisco, California. In March 2018, Landlord served "all tenants at the Property ... with a Notice of Termination of Tenancy ... in furtherance of [Landlord’s] withdrawal of the Property from residential rental use, pursuant to the Ellis Act." Landlord executed a "Notice of Intent to Withdraw Residential Units from the Rental Market" and submitted it to San Francisco’s Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board. Based on their qualifying age, and as permitted under the Ellis Act, Tenants exercised their right to extend the withdrawal date by one year, to March 30, 2019.

In April 2019, Landlord filed UD complaints against Tenants. The complaints were filed as unlimited civil actions, and, in each case, Landlord alleged the "[a]mount demanded exceeds $25,000." For unit 5, Landlord alleged its fair market value "is at least $105.21 per day." For unit 3, Landlord alleged its fair market value "is at least $92.06 per day." For unit 2, Landlord alleged the fair market value "is at least $98.63 per day." According to Landlord, damages caused by Tenants’ unlawful detainer "continue to accrue" at those rates.

In July and August 2019, Landlord moved for summary judgment or summary adjudication in each of the UD actions. For the purpose of resolving the actions by "Motion for Summary Judgment only," Landlord waived "unlawful detainer damages, seeking ... restitution of the Premises." In September 2019, the court granted the Landlord’s motions for summary judgment, noting Landlord "waived the right to holdover damages for later and separate determination in another proceeding." On the same day, the court denied Tenants’ motions for summary judgment.

Five days later, Tenants moved to reclassify the UD actions as limited civil cases, arguing Landlord "waived all unlawful detainer damages, and thus currently has $0 in damages in this action. It is therefore impossible for [Landlord] to meet the $25,000 minimum judgment amount for this to be an unlimited civil matter."³ Landlord opposed the motions for reclassification.

After hearing argument from the parties, but before entering judgments for possession, the court denied the motions for reclassification on October 21, 2019. On the same day, the court entered judgments in favor of Landlord for possession of the rental units. One week later, on October 28, 2019, Tenants petitioned for a writ of mandate.⁴

DISCUSSION

Tenants seek writs of mandate directing the superior court to reclassify these UD actions as limited because "[a]t the time the motion[s were] filed, it was impossible for [Landlord] to obtain a judgment above the jurisdictional threshold for an unlimited civil case." We agree that writ review is appropriate, but we conclude the court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motions to reclassify.⁵

I. Propriety of Writ Review

"When an order is made by the superior court granting or denying a motion to reclassify an action or proceeding ..., the party aggrieved by the order may, within 20 days after service of a written notice of the order, petition the court of appeal for the district in which the court granting or denying the motion is situated for a writ of mandate requiring proper classification of the action or proceeding." (§ 403.080.) This statute provides that we have jurisdiction to review the trial court’s decision on a motion for reclassification and it specifies the nature of the aggrieved party’s remedy—a writ of mandate. Indeed, "an order reclassifying a case is not an appealable order; a party seeking appellate review of such an order must file a timely petition for a writ of mandate pursuant to section 403.080." ( Garau v. Torrance Unified School Dist. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 192, 199, 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 108.)

Here, Tenants timely challenged the court’s denial of their motions to reclassify. The parties agree, as do we, that writ review is appropriate. In addition, the petitions raise an issue of first impression that is likely to recur in UD proceedings. (See Amie v. Superior Court (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 421, 424, 160 Cal.Rptr. 271.)

II Governing Law and Standard of Review

Limited civil cases include ones "in which the demand, exclusive of interest, or the value of the property in controversy amounts to twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) or less." (§ 86, subd. (a)(1).) UD proceedings are limited when "the whole amount of damages claimed is twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) or less." (§ 86, subd. (a)(4).)

A party seeking to reclassify a case from unlimited to limited faces a "high threshold." ( Ytuarte v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 278, 28 Cal.Rptr.3d 474.) The trial court must conclude "that the verdict will ‘necessarily’ fall short of the superior court jurisdictional requirement of a claim exceeding $25,000." ( Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 270, 279 Cal.Rptr. 576, 807 P.2d 418.) "The unlikeliness of a judgment in excess of $25,000 is not the test. The trial court reviews the record to determine whether the result is obtainable. Simply stated, the trial court looks to the possibility of a jurisdictionally appropriate verdict, not to its probability." ( Maldonado v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 397, 402, 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 805.)

We review the trial court’s decision on a reclassification motion for an abuse of discretion. ( Walker v. Superior Court , supra , 53 Cal.3d at p. 272, 279 Cal.Rptr. 576, 807 P.2d 418.) A court abuses its discretion when its ruling is " ‘so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it.’ " ( Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California (2012) 55 Cal.4th 747, 773, 149 Cal.Rptr.3d 614, 288 P.3d 1237.) Nevertheless, a court’s discretion "is not unlimited," and "it must be exercised within the confines of the applicable legal principles." ( Ibid. )

III. No Abuse of Discretion in Denying Reclassification Motions

"Unlawful detainer is a summary procedure designed principally to enable the landlord to gain speedy possession of the property.... [A]lthough Code of Civil Procedure section 1174, subdivision (b), authorizes rental damages in unlawful detainer, nothing in the statutes requires the landlord to litigate his rental claims in the unlawful detainer rather than a separate civil proceeding .... To require the landlord to litigate rental damages in unlawful detainer could delay and frustrate the primary purpose of the proceeding, the obtaining of possession." ( Northrop Corp. v. Chaparral Energy, Inc. (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 725, 729, 214 Cal.Rptr. 173.)⁶

Tenants argue these UD actions are "incorrectly classified" as unlimited "because it is impossible for [Landlord] to recover more than just possession of the Subject Premises." Tenants emphasize that, in its summary judgment motions, Landlord " ‘waived the right to holdover damages for later and separate determination in another proceeding.’ " Tenants contend "the waiver of damages is only allowed in order to seek them in ‘a separate action for relief’ under Civil Code § 1952 [, subd.](b), not in the same action."⁷ Indeed, the orders granting summary judgment provide that Landlord "waived the right to holdover damages for later and separate determination in another proceeding."

Assuming, without deciding, that Landlord can no longer seek damages in these UD actions, the court was not required to reclassify them as limited.⁸ The statute on motions for...