Some Tenants Attorneys Doing Well

So one of my loyal readers wanted to know if I heard anything about landlord-tenant victories in San Francisco lately. Well after looking around a little bit I am happy to announce that two tenants were able to get some justice in the courts.

The most recent was a long term tenant represented by the Law Offices of Mary Catherine Wiederhold and the Law Offices of William E. Shapiro, recently achieved a settlement for their client in a hard fought Owner Move-In case. 


At issue was a landlord attempting to evict a long term tenant in order to move in to their unit. Although settlement numbers were not divulged, the amount was called robust in light of the long-term tenancy of their client, in addition to nearly a year of additional time to move. 


However, a bigger one, which I really should have reported sooner was the decision in the 746 Clementina case, which you may know better as the building formerly owned by the Worst Landlords. The new landlords were attempting to follow through on the Ellis Act eviction started by the Macys. Defended by Steve Collier and the other lawyers at the Tenderloin Housing Clinic, the court decided that the new owners could not Ellis the building.  

Congrats to some tenants lawyers.

So one of my loyal readers wanted to know if I heard anything about landlord-tenant victories in San Francisco lately. Well after looking around a little bit I am happy to announce that two tenants were able to get some justice in the courts.

Mary Williams and Michael McGuinness, who were represented by the Law Offices of Mary Catherine Wiederhold and the Law Offices of William E. Shapiro, recently forced the settlement on the day of trial. Williams and McGuinness alleged constructive eviction against their landlord after having to suffer for more than two years because of their downstairs neighbor. This neighbor was, allegedly, a methamphetamine dealer. The landlord denied all knowledge. The defendants agreed to a robust six figure settlement. The case was before the San Francisco Superior Court in February.”

What Is This Prosecutor Thinking

Assistant District Attorney Daryl Reed is prosecuting a case of prostitution that seems to have spun a bit out of control for him. Mr. Reed is the ADA from the New York District Attorney's office who is prosecuting one of the prostitution cases coming out Big Daddy Lou's Hot Lap Dance Club arrests (which happened in 2008). NYPD ran undercover officers in the club to investigate charges of prostitution. (I'm wondering if it was hard to get volunteers for that one.)

Apparently, they found enough to make their case as they raided the establishing in 2008. According to people who were there, the NYPD raided the place in full riot gear with weapons drawn. Among the 26 people arrested was porn star Alexia Moore and Swedish model Sabrina Mari (who oddly enough does not list Big Daddy Lou's as a client).

Alexia Moore has been charged with prostitution. Apparently she and another dancer propositioned one of the undercover officers, offering a menage a trois for $5,000.



Now the other dancer, Falynn Rodriguez (she on the right without the blackberry in the picture), has already had the charges against her dismissed. However, Ms. Moore still faces charges. Mr. Reed, who seems very intent on getting a conviction, has gone the extra mile to ensure her conviction.

He has alleged to the court that because Ms. Alexia does a lot of sapphic themed (or as some might say "girl on girl") porn that she should not allowed to claim a "lesbian defense". According to the report, he noticed her ... work choices, after reviewing her films (again, I wonder how hard it was to get a volunteer to do that research for him.).

So my question is, when did being a lesbian mean that a woman can't be a prostitute with male clients? Seems like he should be working on making sure he has the testimony and evidence necessary to make his case, rather than focusing on who she does and does not sleep with when she is not on the clock.

Oops, too late. It just came out that Ms. Moore was found not guilty in her trial today.

Congratulations Are In Order

In a hard fought legal battle, the firm of Behrend Morrison and Alexandra came out on top. Paul Behrend and his partner, Aaron Morrison, defended a tenant who was being evicted for allegedly paying his rent late. At a jury trial this past week, they proved to a jury that he had.

Congratulations to them. They saved someone's home.

Congrats to a Tenant Attorney

After two days of trial, plus another in settlement conferences, a local (San Francisco) attorney, Mary Catherine Wiederhold, won a victory for her client. The opposition was Trophy Properties (a subsidiary of CitiApartments).

This was an unlawful detainer case based on a non-payment of rent. The rub was this: the month that the defendant was alleged to have failed to pay was more than nine months prior to the service of the 3-Day Notice to Quit. The defendant stated that she had previously paid the rent for the month in question and that the unlawful detainer was only filed against her because she had called San Francisco's Department of Building Inspection in order to compel the landlord to make needed repairs. At trial, the defense won the case on an nonsuit, resulting in the court dismissing the case with prejudice.

Congrats to Ms. Wiederhold!

Score One for the Tenants

Even though San Francisco is a city where more people rent than own, its still hard for a tenant to prevail in a unlawful detainer action. There are various theories about why that it is, but for some reason, it seems like landlord attorney tend to prevail, even when the facts should indicate a tenant victory.

Well, today a jury came out with a verdict in favor of the tenant in a issue that, in tenant's right circles, is worrisome. The issue is OMI, which stands for Owner Move-In. What it was really meant for was to allow owners to evict people from their tenancies when the landlord, or their immediate family, wanted to live on the property. To protect the tenants, the board of supervisors, in drafting the San Francisco Rent Ordinance, made it so that an OMI could only happen, anmong other requirements, if the owner did have another vacant property to live in.

In some cases, this has lead to problems of proving intent. And in some cases, litigation to determine whether intent was even at issue in the case. Which is what was at issue in this case.

According to Beyond the Chron, the landlord in question had other properties, including a residential unit which he used as an office, a vacation home outside the city, and was renting an apartment in a different part of the city. Now this was argued to the jury, by Dean Preston and Raquel Fox of the Tenderloin Housing Clinic, that this created a presumption of bad faith. Coupled with a previous attempt at evicting the tenants, for capital improvements, and it showed that the landlord was really interested in getting out a long-term tenant who was paying below market rates.

I do not know what the attorneys for the landlord, Dave Wasserman and Daniel Stern of Wasserman-Stern, said to rebut this. Whatever it was, it did not work very well.

The jury came back 11 - 1 in favor of the tenant.

Congratulations to Preston and Fox. They did an outstanding job.

SF Lawyer Scores A Big Win This Past Week

One of the local law firms, The Dolan Law Firm, took on a case of two Arab Americans who were suffering from harrasment in the workplace. After a six week trial, the jury deliberated for four hours. The case was heard in Alameda County in Department 19, under the title Issa v. Roadway Package System (which is now Fed Ex Ground).

At trial, The Dolan Law Firm's Christopher Dolan asked the jury to return a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs in the amount of $2.5 million each to compensate for the daily harassment the two suffered while working at Federal Express.

From what I have heard, the jury took four hours to deliberate and came back with a verdict on May 24. They ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The amount awarded? 5.5 million to each plaintiff.

What is interesting about this is that apparently there were no experts. Just the statements made by employees and managers of the company as well testimony of the two men who suffered the verbal humiliation for no other reason than they were born in Lebanon. The jury also found that punitives should be awarded.

A week later, the two sides were back at it. They argued the question of punitives to the jury on Thursday this week. Apparently, the jury just came back with a number.

As to the supervisors who were part of the problem, the jury awared the plaintiffs $56.00.

As to FedEx ground, who was ultimately responsible and failed to put into place a system to preven this from happeneing, the jury awarded $50,000,000.00 (that would fifty million if I am counting zeros correctly).

Something that makes this almost more amazing is that the two men who were being harassed, for an accident of birth, had gone to ten other law firms and a prestigious civil rights organization before finally going to Mr. Dolan's firm. All of them passed on the case. Mr. Dolan , and his staff, took the time to go out and find the evidence and the witnesses.

Unfortunately, there will be some who will look at this case and say it was a jury gone wild, that Alameda County, where the trial was held, is a judicial hellhole. They will belittle the case and the say that this is just another example of lawyers run amok and ruining businesses.

What people should see is that two men just wanted to work. Instead, according to the pleadings, they were insulted, given less profitable jobs than those who were not lebanese or accepted the abuse without protest, and derided for their perceived lifestyle choice for no other reason than the place where they were born. No one should have to go through that.

Congratulations Mr. Dolan on your win.

(For those who want to see the complaint, it is here in Tiff form or at the Alameda County Superior Court web site under case C-8411208)

Good Job the AUSAs who tried the case!

It was certainly not a sexy case. It relied on a lot of numbers, a lot of papers, and a lot of things that most people would not find sexy in a case. However, it was a massive case of fraud and the AUSAs who tried the case obtained the verdict from the jurors today.

Kenneth Lay and James Skilling are no longer suspected of committing fraud. The jury today found them guilty. Mr. Lay as convicted on six counts of conspiracy and fraud. Mr. Skilling was found guilty of 19 counts of of conspiracy, fraud, false statements, and insider trading. Lay was also convicted by a the U.S. District Court Judge of four counts of fraud on charges which were tried the bench only. Of the entire indictment, only Skiling managed any acquittals. The jury found him not guilty on nine counts of insider trading. Pretty damn good!

Wow! I hope I can be like this guy if I'm ever in this situation

Deputy Public Defender Michael Pentz went a little farther than most attorneys for their clients. He was held in contempt, sentenced to 5 days in jail and fined $250. But in the end, he was vindicated. Read the decision here.

Interesting article of today

Over at the Wall Street Journal's opinionjournal.com site, there is an intersting article about lawyer's blogging. The author, Cameron Stracher, tries to explain why so man lawyers have taken to blogging. He writes,

In the dark hours, writing seems like a natural escape. It's what most lawyers
do (when they're not reviewing documents), and though blogging is very
different from drafting a prospectus, it's lose enough to fool many lawyers into trading one form of verbiage for another. Writing a blog can also be done in secret, on your own time (or during office hours if you're careful), and it is potentially lucrative (if you can get some ads or make a name for yourself). For many lawyers, writing is also their true love, a dream they had before financial concerns and parental pressure drove them into drudgery. Some turn to nonfiction, hoping to transform their legal meanderings into punditry. Others (myself included) seek to channel their inner McInerney by penning the next great American novel, or at least a best seller.

Anyways, kind of an interesting quick read. Back to my drugdery. Its name is a meet and confer letter from hell.

Is $77.50 worth $25,000?

It is when you are keeping your promise.

Robbie Linton used to be an oil field worker. Then he was injured. He navigated the worker compensation system with the help of a six person law firm now known as Wellborn Houston. At the end of the case, the partner representing Mr. Linton gave him a letter explaining what his rights were. It also said that if he needed further help with this matter, that he was to come back to Wellborn Houston and they would help him.

Eventually, the insurance company, which under the ruling from the workers comp case was supposed to cover his prescriptions, started to deny him coverage for his medication. The total in denials was only $77.50. But when he could not get it resolved with the insurance company, Mr. Linton took the letter his old attorney had given him and returned to Wellborn Houston.

As the article comments lawyers are accused of being greedy, but apparently the attorneys at the firm, who it appears have been hired since Linton's orignal case, know how to honor a promise. They took the case to verdict, expending almost $25,000.00 to do so, to honor the promise. There's a couple of mensches there.