EPA-TENANTS.ORG
PROTECTING EAST PALO ALTO TENANTS AND FAMILIES
PROTECTING EAST PALO ALTO TENANTS AND FAMILIES
What is happening on the litigation front?
Page Mill Management (Page Mill Properties) LLC et al. versus City of East Palo Alto et al. (#CIV 469315):
In December 2007, the East Palo Alto City Council voted in favor of an urgency ordinance that placed a six-month moratorium on rent increases above 3.2%. In response, Page Mill Properties sued for two causes of action: dismissal of the moratorium, and declaratory judgment legitimizing the rent increases. The international law firm of Howrey LLP stepped in to represent the City on a pro bono basis. In March, the San Mateo County Superior Court upheld Page Mill’s request to strike down the urgency ordinance, but did not make a ruling on the rent increases. In December 2008, the City of East Palo Alto filed a writ for an appeal, with the law firm of Covington & Burling LLP as co-counsel. The City, to date, has been unable to obtain injunctive relief for tenants.
Woodland Park Management (Page Mill Properties) LLC versus City of East Palo Alto Rent Stabilization Board et al. (#CIV 474521):
This petition for a writ of mandate was filed on July 9, 2008 by the firm of Zacks & Utrecht and sought to have the registration fee of $240 for FY 2008-2009 set aside as unreasonable. On August 29, 2008, the San Mateo County Superior Court ruled the Rent Stabilization Program had billed the registration fee too late and that the fee of $135 which was in effect from 2007-2008 should therefore remain in effect for 2008-2009.
Woodland Park Management (Page Mill Properties) LLC et al. versus City of East Palo Alto et al. (#CIV 474682, consolidated with #CIV 469315):
On July 9, 2008, the Rent Stabilization Board of East Palo Alto voted on new regulations governing the certificate of maximum legal rent issued to landlords. Page Mill Properties sued, asking for the new regulations to be overturned, and again requesting declaratory judgment legitimizing the rent increases. On October 27, the San Mateo County Superior Court ruled to strike down the new rules and regulations. The City of East Palo Alto has appealed the court’s decision.
1643 Woodland (Page Mill Properties) LLC versus Rent Stabilization Board (#CIV 474732):
This complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief was filed on July 16, 2008 by the firm of Zacks & Utrecht and seeks a court determination that 1643 Woodland LLC is exempt from the registration and certification requirements of the Rent Stabilization Ordinance. The City filed a demurrer in the case, and Page Mill amended its complaint. This suit appears to be a challenge to the class action lawsuit brought by tenants in San Mateo County Superior Court, Tenants versus Page Mill Properties LLC (#CIV 478796), which alleges the LLC form as established is a sham (see below). On June 16, 2009, the Court denied Page Mill's claim for relief stating it was clear that there was no controversy between the City and Page Mill on this issue.
655 Scofield (Page Mill Properties) LLC versus City of East Palo Alto (#CIV 477568):
Davis Holding (Page Mill Properties) LLC versus City of East Palo Alto (#CIV 477567):
Two title actions were served on the City on October 20, 2008 by the firm of Hanna & Van Atta. They seek to have the court declare that the unnamed alleys between Capitol Avenue and Cooley Avenue and between Euclid Avenue and Manhattan Avenue are private property belonging to the adjacent landowners (i.e. Page Mill Properties) and not property of the City. The City has filed answers and case management conferences were set by the court for February 24, 2009.
Tenants versus Page Mill Properties LLC (#CIV 478796):
In July 2008, the law firm of Heller Ehrman agreed to represent tenants pro bono in a class action lawsuit against Page Mill Properties. This complaint, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, alleges that Page Mill has attempted to evade East Palo Alto’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO) by segregating into LLC’s with holdings of four units or less that would ostensibly be exempted from rent stabilization under the RSO’s “mom and pop” exemption. The lawsuit is asking the court for a declaration that Page Mill’s LLC’s are a sham, and as such, should not be exempt from the Ordinance. The matter is now being handled by the Washington D.C. based law firm of Hogan & Hartson. Limited discovery is underway.
Woodland Park Management (Page Mill Properties) LLC versus City of East Palo Alto et al. (#CIV 480138):
On January 6, 2009, the Law Offices of Tony J. Tanke filed a petition for writ of mandate alleging the City of East Palo Alto refused to provide certain documents in response to a public records act request on the Berkeley rent stabilization program peer review of East Palo Alto's rent stabilization program.
Woodland Park Management (Page Mill Properties) LLC et al. versus City of East Palo Alto Rent Stabilization Board et al. (#CIV 480456):
This petition for writ of mandate and complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief was filed on January 20, 2009 by the firm of Ellman, Burke, Hoffman & Johnson. It alleges that the City of East Palo Alto has repeatedly violated provisions of the Brown Act through the actions of its City Council and Rent Stabilization Board and that this has resulted in harm to Woodland Park Management. Deposition and document production notices were received for all members of the Rent Stabilization Board and are being contested. This case is active.
1488 West Bayshore (Page Mill Properties) LLC et al. versus City of East Palo Alto et al. (#CIV 482848):
On April 7, 2009, the law firm of Zacks & Utrecht filed a petition for writs of administrative and traditional mandate and a complaint for declaratory and equitable relief alleging the East Palo Alto Rent Stabilization Board wrongly denied 43 petitions for exemption from the Rent Stabilization Ordinance based on substantial rehabilitation. Among other alleged procedural violations, the plaintiffs allege that the two landlord representatives do not represent landlord interests and were not properly appointed under the terms of the RSO.
Woodland Park Management (Page Mill Properties) LLC et al. versus Rent Stabilization Board et al. (#CIV 483884):
On May 6, 2009, the law firms of Zacks & Utrecht and Ellman, Burke, Hoffman & Johnson filed a petition for writs of mandate and complaint alleging the East Palo Alto Rent Stabilization Board refused to issue Certificates of Maximum Legal Rent after the landlord filed its annual registration statements on June 30, 2008. According to Administrative Law Judge (i.e. hearing examiner) rulings in related cases (see below), the City was not provided with the required vacancy data.
Woodland Park Management (Page Mill Properties) LLC versus City of East Palo Alto et al. (#CIV 486152):
This petition for writ of mandate and reverse validation action was filed on July 23, 2009, by the law firm of Cox, Castle & Nicholson and alleges the City of East Palo Alto violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in its recent decision to consolidate several redevelopment agency project areas without environmental review. The City filed a Notice of Exemption after determining that consolidation of these project areas was exempt from review under CEQA.
Woodland Park Management (Page Mill Properties) LLC et al. versus City of East Palo Alto et al. (#CIV 486296):
On July 28, 2009, the law firms of Ellman, Burke, Hoffman & Johnson and Hartnett, Smith & Associates filed a petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief alleging the City committed numerous Brown Act violations in the course of drafting its new Rent Stabilization Ordinance. In response to the petition, Judge Beth Freeman issued a temporary restraining order against the City of East Palo Alto barring City Council dicussion of the draft Rent Stabilization Ordinance. The ruling jeopardized placement of the ordinance on the November ballot. Judge Freeman later clarified her order stating that it only applied to the July 28 meeting and that it did not prohibit the City from holding a meeting with new notice. Woodland Park's second request for a TRO on August 3 was denied and it subsequently dropped its motion for a preliminary injunction.
Woodland Park Management (Page Mill Properties) LLC et al. versus City of East Palo Alto et al. (#CIV 486819):
On August 12, 2009, the law firms of Ellman, Burke, Hoffman & Johnson and Hartnett, Smith & Associates filed a second petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief again alleging the City committed numerous Brown Act violations in the course of drafting its revised Rent Stabilization Ordinance and further alleging non-compliance with CEQA. The complaint names Warren Slocum, Chief Elections Officer, San Mateo County as a defendant along with the City and seeks to have the revised Rent Stabilization Ordinance removed from the November 3, 2009 ballot for San Mateo County.
Tenants versus Page Mill Properties LLC (Rent Stabilization Board Hearings):
In January 2008, 18 tenants filed petitions with the East Palo Alto Rent Stabilization Board protesting their rent increases. A hearing examiner ruled in favor of all 18. Page Mill appealed to the Rent Stabilization Board. On August 27, the Board upheld the hearing examiner’s decision. The tenants (now eight of the original 18) were represented by Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto. Page Mill has the option of appealing the decision to San Mateo County Superior Court.
In the summer of 2008, an additional 136 petitions were filed with the East Palo Alto Rent Stabilization Board by tenants who were challenging Page Mill’s rent increases. The petitions were consolidated and heard by a hearing examiner on January 23, 2009 with tenants represented by the Stanford Community Law Clinic. In May 2009, the hearing examiner ruled in favor of these tenants. Page Mill can now appeal this decision in front of the Rent Stabilization Board.
Unlawful Detainer Actions:
Page Mill has attempted to evict a large number of tenants, many of whom have turned to Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto (CLSEPA) and the Stanford Community Law Clinic for assistance. In all five instances where CLSEPA assisted a client being evicted for rent-related reasons, Page Mill either dismissed the lawsuit or agreed to a settlement that was favorable to the client. In total, six different law firms have assisted tenants in unlawful detainer related matters related to Page Mill Properties.
TOP Contact: EPA-TENANTS.ORG
Page Mill Management (Page Mill Properties) LLC et al. versus City of East Palo Alto et al. (#CIV 469315):
In December 2007, the East Palo Alto City Council voted in favor of an urgency ordinance that placed a six-month moratorium on rent increases above 3.2%. In response, Page Mill Properties sued for two causes of action: dismissal of the moratorium, and declaratory judgment legitimizing the rent increases. The international law firm of Howrey LLP stepped in to represent the City on a pro bono basis. In March, the San Mateo County Superior Court upheld Page Mill’s request to strike down the urgency ordinance, but did not make a ruling on the rent increases. In December 2008, the City of East Palo Alto filed a writ for an appeal, with the law firm of Covington & Burling LLP as co-counsel. The City, to date, has been unable to obtain injunctive relief for tenants.
Woodland Park Management (Page Mill Properties) LLC versus City of East Palo Alto Rent Stabilization Board et al. (#CIV 474521):
This petition for a writ of mandate was filed on July 9, 2008 by the firm of Zacks & Utrecht and sought to have the registration fee of $240 for FY 2008-2009 set aside as unreasonable. On August 29, 2008, the San Mateo County Superior Court ruled the Rent Stabilization Program had billed the registration fee too late and that the fee of $135 which was in effect from 2007-2008 should therefore remain in effect for 2008-2009.
Woodland Park Management (Page Mill Properties) LLC et al. versus City of East Palo Alto et al. (#CIV 474682, consolidated with #CIV 469315):
On July 9, 2008, the Rent Stabilization Board of East Palo Alto voted on new regulations governing the certificate of maximum legal rent issued to landlords. Page Mill Properties sued, asking for the new regulations to be overturned, and again requesting declaratory judgment legitimizing the rent increases. On October 27, the San Mateo County Superior Court ruled to strike down the new rules and regulations. The City of East Palo Alto has appealed the court’s decision.
1643 Woodland (Page Mill Properties) LLC versus Rent Stabilization Board (#CIV 474732):
This complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief was filed on July 16, 2008 by the firm of Zacks & Utrecht and seeks a court determination that 1643 Woodland LLC is exempt from the registration and certification requirements of the Rent Stabilization Ordinance. The City filed a demurrer in the case, and Page Mill amended its complaint. This suit appears to be a challenge to the class action lawsuit brought by tenants in San Mateo County Superior Court, Tenants versus Page Mill Properties LLC (#CIV 478796), which alleges the LLC form as established is a sham (see below). On June 16, 2009, the Court denied Page Mill's claim for relief stating it was clear that there was no controversy between the City and Page Mill on this issue.
655 Scofield (Page Mill Properties) LLC versus City of East Palo Alto (#CIV 477568):
Davis Holding (Page Mill Properties) LLC versus City of East Palo Alto (#CIV 477567):
Two title actions were served on the City on October 20, 2008 by the firm of Hanna & Van Atta. They seek to have the court declare that the unnamed alleys between Capitol Avenue and Cooley Avenue and between Euclid Avenue and Manhattan Avenue are private property belonging to the adjacent landowners (i.e. Page Mill Properties) and not property of the City. The City has filed answers and case management conferences were set by the court for February 24, 2009.
Tenants versus Page Mill Properties LLC (#CIV 478796):
In July 2008, the law firm of Heller Ehrman agreed to represent tenants pro bono in a class action lawsuit against Page Mill Properties. This complaint, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, alleges that Page Mill has attempted to evade East Palo Alto’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO) by segregating into LLC’s with holdings of four units or less that would ostensibly be exempted from rent stabilization under the RSO’s “mom and pop” exemption. The lawsuit is asking the court for a declaration that Page Mill’s LLC’s are a sham, and as such, should not be exempt from the Ordinance. The matter is now being handled by the Washington D.C. based law firm of Hogan & Hartson. Limited discovery is underway.
Woodland Park Management (Page Mill Properties) LLC versus City of East Palo Alto et al. (#CIV 480138):
On January 6, 2009, the Law Offices of Tony J. Tanke filed a petition for writ of mandate alleging the City of East Palo Alto refused to provide certain documents in response to a public records act request on the Berkeley rent stabilization program peer review of East Palo Alto's rent stabilization program.
Woodland Park Management (Page Mill Properties) LLC et al. versus City of East Palo Alto Rent Stabilization Board et al. (#CIV 480456):
This petition for writ of mandate and complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief was filed on January 20, 2009 by the firm of Ellman, Burke, Hoffman & Johnson. It alleges that the City of East Palo Alto has repeatedly violated provisions of the Brown Act through the actions of its City Council and Rent Stabilization Board and that this has resulted in harm to Woodland Park Management. Deposition and document production notices were received for all members of the Rent Stabilization Board and are being contested. This case is active.
1488 West Bayshore (Page Mill Properties) LLC et al. versus City of East Palo Alto et al. (#CIV 482848):
On April 7, 2009, the law firm of Zacks & Utrecht filed a petition for writs of administrative and traditional mandate and a complaint for declaratory and equitable relief alleging the East Palo Alto Rent Stabilization Board wrongly denied 43 petitions for exemption from the Rent Stabilization Ordinance based on substantial rehabilitation. Among other alleged procedural violations, the plaintiffs allege that the two landlord representatives do not represent landlord interests and were not properly appointed under the terms of the RSO.
Woodland Park Management (Page Mill Properties) LLC et al. versus Rent Stabilization Board et al. (#CIV 483884):
On May 6, 2009, the law firms of Zacks & Utrecht and Ellman, Burke, Hoffman & Johnson filed a petition for writs of mandate and complaint alleging the East Palo Alto Rent Stabilization Board refused to issue Certificates of Maximum Legal Rent after the landlord filed its annual registration statements on June 30, 2008. According to Administrative Law Judge (i.e. hearing examiner) rulings in related cases (see below), the City was not provided with the required vacancy data.
Woodland Park Management (Page Mill Properties) LLC versus City of East Palo Alto et al. (#CIV 486152):
This petition for writ of mandate and reverse validation action was filed on July 23, 2009, by the law firm of Cox, Castle & Nicholson and alleges the City of East Palo Alto violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in its recent decision to consolidate several redevelopment agency project areas without environmental review. The City filed a Notice of Exemption after determining that consolidation of these project areas was exempt from review under CEQA.
Woodland Park Management (Page Mill Properties) LLC et al. versus City of East Palo Alto et al. (#CIV 486296):
On July 28, 2009, the law firms of Ellman, Burke, Hoffman & Johnson and Hartnett, Smith & Associates filed a petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief alleging the City committed numerous Brown Act violations in the course of drafting its new Rent Stabilization Ordinance. In response to the petition, Judge Beth Freeman issued a temporary restraining order against the City of East Palo Alto barring City Council dicussion of the draft Rent Stabilization Ordinance. The ruling jeopardized placement of the ordinance on the November ballot. Judge Freeman later clarified her order stating that it only applied to the July 28 meeting and that it did not prohibit the City from holding a meeting with new notice. Woodland Park's second request for a TRO on August 3 was denied and it subsequently dropped its motion for a preliminary injunction.
Woodland Park Management (Page Mill Properties) LLC et al. versus City of East Palo Alto et al. (#CIV 486819):
On August 12, 2009, the law firms of Ellman, Burke, Hoffman & Johnson and Hartnett, Smith & Associates filed a second petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief again alleging the City committed numerous Brown Act violations in the course of drafting its revised Rent Stabilization Ordinance and further alleging non-compliance with CEQA. The complaint names Warren Slocum, Chief Elections Officer, San Mateo County as a defendant along with the City and seeks to have the revised Rent Stabilization Ordinance removed from the November 3, 2009 ballot for San Mateo County.
Tenants versus Page Mill Properties LLC (Rent Stabilization Board Hearings):
In January 2008, 18 tenants filed petitions with the East Palo Alto Rent Stabilization Board protesting their rent increases. A hearing examiner ruled in favor of all 18. Page Mill appealed to the Rent Stabilization Board. On August 27, the Board upheld the hearing examiner’s decision. The tenants (now eight of the original 18) were represented by Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto. Page Mill has the option of appealing the decision to San Mateo County Superior Court.
In the summer of 2008, an additional 136 petitions were filed with the East Palo Alto Rent Stabilization Board by tenants who were challenging Page Mill’s rent increases. The petitions were consolidated and heard by a hearing examiner on January 23, 2009 with tenants represented by the Stanford Community Law Clinic. In May 2009, the hearing examiner ruled in favor of these tenants. Page Mill can now appeal this decision in front of the Rent Stabilization Board.
Unlawful Detainer Actions:
Page Mill has attempted to evict a large number of tenants, many of whom have turned to Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto (CLSEPA) and the Stanford Community Law Clinic for assistance. In all five instances where CLSEPA assisted a client being evicted for rent-related reasons, Page Mill either dismissed the lawsuit or agreed to a settlement that was favorable to the client. In total, six different law firms have assisted tenants in unlawful detainer related matters related to Page Mill Properties.
TOP Contact: EPA-TENANTS.ORG
Litigation Summary
Home
Crisis Statistics
Where to Find Help
How You Can Help
Media Coverage
*Litigation
Document Archive
Resolutions
CalPERS' Role
Wachovia's Role
Other Participants
For Page Mill Staff
Page Mill Executives
Tenant Stories
Photos & Flyers
Upcoming Events
About Us
Crisis Statistics
Where to Find Help
How You Can Help
Media Coverage
*Litigation
Document Archive
Resolutions
CalPERS' Role
Wachovia's Role
Other Participants
For Page Mill Staff
Page Mill Executives
Tenant Stories
Photos & Flyers
Upcoming Events
About Us
