Cumali v. SF Residential Rent Stabilization Bd.
Filed 5/24/06 Cumali v. SF Residential Rent Stabilization Bd. CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
| JUNE CUMALI et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTIAL RENT STABILIZATION AND ARBITRATION BOARD, Defendant and Respondent. | A110985 (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. CPF 04-503907) |
By petition for writ of mandate, June and Zulfikar Cumali challenge a regulation adopted by the City and County of San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board (Rent Board). Under the regulation, landlords who seek to recover possession of their rental units for an extended period to make major capital improvements must file a special petition with the Rent Board before serving notices to vacate on their tenants. The Cumalis contend that the regulation is preempted by state unlawful detainer statutes. The trial court held that the Cumalis lacked standing to raise the preemption claim under Code of Civil Procedure section 1086. We agree, and affirm the judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
The Cumalis own three adjacent rental properties in San Francisco. In 2002, the Cumalis decided to undertake extensive renovations to the properties which could not be performed safely without displacing the six tenants who lived there.
San Francisco's Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance (S.F. Admin. Code, ch. 37) (Ordinance) provides that lessors may evict tenants for up to three months to carry out capital improvements or renovation work. (Ord., § 37.9, subd. (a)(11).) Under the Ordinance, the landlord is required to â€
