Motion for Writ in MEL MURPHY ET AL VS. RESIDENTIAL RENT STABILIZATION AND ARBITRATION| Trellis.Law

On March 06, 2024 a Complaint,Petition was filed involving a dispute between Murphy, Mel, Murphy, Nuannoi, and Residential Rent Stabilization And Arbitration, for WRITS OF MANDATE OR PROH., CERTI., ETC./ADMIN. AGEN in the District Court of San Francisco County.

Preview
ELECTRONICALLY
1 MICHAEL G. SCHINNER (SBN 142363)
DENISE R. PRITCHARD (SBN 346469) FILED
Superior Court of California,
2 SCHINNER & SHAIN, LLP County of San Francisco
96 JESSIE STREET
3 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 03/06/2024
Telephone: (415) 369-9050 Clerk of the Court
BY: DAEJA ROGERS
4 Fax: (415) 369-9053 Deputy Clerk

5 Attorneys for PETITIONERS
MEL and NUANNOI MURPHY
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

10 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
CPF-24-518485
11
12 MEL and NUANNOI MURPHY, CASE NO.: ______________

13 PETITIONERS NOTICE AND VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT
OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS (CCP §
14 vs. 1094.5); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
15 AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
RESIDENTIAL RENT STABILIZATION FOR WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE
16 AND ARBITRATION BOARD CITY & MANDAMUS; EXHIBITS; DECLARATION
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, FROM PETITIONERS ATTORNEY IN
17 SUPPORT; AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
RESPONDENT. GRANTING PETITION
18
19 Remote Appearance

20 DATE: April 11, 2024
TIME: 9:00 a.m.
21 DEPT.: 501
22
23 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD HEREIN:

24 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 11, 2024, at 9:00 a.m., or soon thereafter as the

25 matter may be heard in in Department 501, with the Honorable Charles F. Haines presiding,
26 PETITIONERS MEL and NUANNOI MURPHY (“Petitioners”) will and hereby does move and
27
petition the Court by this Ex Parte Application for a peremptory writ of administrative mandamus,
28

Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate 1
1 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 to compel RESPONDENT RESIDENTIAL
2 RENT STABILIZATION AND ARBITRATION BOARD CITY & COUNTY OF SAN
3
FRANCISCO (“Respondent Rent Board”), to set aside its decision of January 17, 2023, and
4
subsequently on November 6, 2023, denying Petitioners appeal (Appeal No. AL220057; Original
5
No. T220449) for the real property located at 1756 Broadway Street #7, San Francisco, California
6
7 (the “Property”), and to reconsider Petitioners case on the basis of relevant evidence that, in the
8 exercise of reasonable diligence, was improperly excluded at the hearing before Respondent Rent
9 Board. In support, Petitioners allege as follows:
10 PARTIES
11
1. Petitioners MEL MURPHY and NUANNOI MURPHY are residents of the City and
12
County of San Francisco, California. On or about November 6, 2023, Respondent Rent
13
Board issued a final decision through oral communication to the Petitioners attorney,
14
15 Michael G. Schinner, Esq., denying the Petitioners appeal for reconsideration of

16 Respondent Rend Board’s decisions issued on November 28, 2022 (Original No.

17 T220449) and subsequently on January 17, 2023 (Appeal No. AL220057), of which
18
action Petitioners seek review by this Court. A true and correct copy of the Petitioners
19
appeal for reconsideration is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
20
2. Respondent Rent Board is an agency of the City of San Francisco authorized to interpret
21
and enforce San Francisco’s Residential Rent Ordinance. It is the agency that has taken
22
23 the action by which Petitioners are aggrieved and of which Petitioners seek review by

24 this Court.
25 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
26
3. This Court has jurisdiction to issue writ of mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
27
section 1094.5.
28

Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate 2
1 4. Venue is proper in this Court to pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section
2 392 because San Francisco County is the county where the real property that is the
3
subject of this action is situated.
4
5. Petitioners have no plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law.
5
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
6
7 6. The Property is located at 1756 Broadway Street in San Francisco. The building consists

8 of approximately seven residential units. There are no commercial units.

9 7. On or around July 26, 2021, Petitioners purchased the Property from Mr. Jonathan
10 Tourzan and received a rent roll in escrow listing the rent for Mr. Petr Seckar (the
11
“Tenant”) as $1,450 per month, and a closing statement listing Tenant’s deposit as
12
$1,500.
13
8. On June 1, 2022, Petitioners, as the new Landlord of the Property, increased Tenant’s
14
15 monthly rent from $1,450 to $1,483.35, and provided Tenant with a written notice of the

16 rent increase.

17 9. On May 24, 2022, a petition (Case No. T220449) was filed by Tenant with Respondent
18
Rent Board alleging that Petitioners increased the rent over the allowable limits and
19
requesting a determination of Tenant’s lawful rent.
20
10. On August 25, 2022, a hearing was held by Respondent Rent Board, and the record was
21
closed September 1, 2022.
22
23 11. During the hearing before Respondent Rent Board, Tenant testified moving into the

24 vacant subject unit #7 on April 1, 2011, and paying the owner, John B. Hoagland Living
25 Trust, an initial base rent of $500 per month. Tenant stated that the initial monthly base
26
rent was not increased and remained at $500 per month from move-in date until August
27
31, 2016. Tenant further testified that on or around September 16, 2016, the owner of the
28

Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate 3
1 Property at the time, Mr. Tourzan, orally raised the tenant’s rent from $500 to $1,450 per
2 month, requested a deposit of $1,500 per month, refused to accept the Tenant’s $500 rent
3
for September 2016, and told Tenant through text message exchanges that Tenant could
4
move out of the building if Tenant did not pay the higher rent. Tenant further testified
5
that he paid rental obligations of $1,450 per month to the landlords of the Property from
6
7 September 2016 through May 2022.

8 12. On November 28, 2022, the Administrative Law Judge, Michael J. Berg, granted the

9 Tenant’s petition and determined that Petitioners were liable for the sum of $40,981.10 to
10 the Tenant for rent overpayments for the period from May 1, 2019, through November
11
20, 2022. A true and correct copy of the Respondent Rent Board’s decision for Case No.
12
T220449 is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
13
13. In December 2022, Petitioners timely filed an Appeal (Appeal No. AL220057) to
14
15 Respondent Rent Board for the Property, which was denied on January 17, 2023. A true

16 and correct copy of the Respondent Rent Board’s final decision for Appeal No.

17 AL220057 is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
18
14. On March 3, 2023, Petitioners became aware of new facts and information that was
19
improperly excluded at the hearing before Respondent Rent Board, including Tenant’s
20
special relationship with the prior owner of the Property (the “John B. Hoagland Living
21
Trust”), that Tenant paid a significantly lower rent for his unit at the Property as a result
22
23 of an employment agreement with the prior owner of the Property, and Tenant negotiated

24 and agreed to the rent increases proposed by Mr. Tourzan in September 2016.
25 15. In July 2023, Petitioners obtained declarations from Mr. Tourzan’s real estate agent, Ms.
26
Mirella Webb, and Petitioners real estate agent, Ms. Lucy Yeung, providing support for
27
Petitioners appeal to Respondent Rent Board and setting forth the new facts and
28

Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate 4
1 circumstances that each became aware of on March 3, 2023.
2 16. In November 2023, Petitioners filed an appeal to Respondent Rent Board asking for
3
reconsideration of the Petitioners case as a result of the newly discovered evidence that
4
by due diligence was not discovered until after the hearing before Respondent Rent
5
Board; however, on November 6, 2023, Respondent Rent Board through telephone
6
7 communications to Petitioners Attorney, Michael G. Schinner, denied Petitioners appeal

8 and refused to re-open Petitioners case.

9 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
10 (Writ of Mandate Against Respondent Rent Board)
11
17. Petitioners incorporate by this reference each and all of the allegations of Paragraphs 1
12
through 16 hereof, as if fully set forth herein.
13
18. Petitioners are filing this Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandamus (Code of Civil
14
15 Procedure Section 1094.5) on the grounds that Respondent Rent Board’s findings are not

16 supported by the weight of the evidence and there is relevant evidence that, in the

17 exercise of reasonable diligence, was improperly excluded at the hearing before
18
Respondent Rent Board.
19
19. As a result of the Tenant’s improper exclusion of relevant evidence during the hearing
20
before Respondent Rent Board, Petitioners were wrongfully held liable to Tenant for
21
refunds of rent overpayments in the amount of $40,981.10.
22
23 20. After becoming aware of relevant evidence not disclosed or otherwise available at

24 hearing before Respondent Rent Board, the Petitioners obtained declarations from
25 Petitioners real estate agent (Ms. Lucy Yeung) and Mr. Tourzan’s real estate agent (Ms.
26
Mirella Webb) and subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration to Respondent Rent
27
Board in order for the new or different facts and circumstances to be considered.
28

Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate 5
1 21. Respondent Rent Board’s final decision to sustain its original findings and not reopen
2 Petitioners case is an abuse of discretion, in that such penalty is disproportionately harsh
3
and excessive to Petitioners.
4
22. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, Petitioners are entitled to relief by
5
this Court to set aside Respondent Rent Board’s final decision and reconsider Petitioners
6
7 case in light of relevant evidence improperly excluded from the hearing before

8 Respondent Rent Board.

9 23. At all times herein, Petitioners exhausted all administrative remedies available, and as
10 such, Petitioners have no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the original course of the
11
law, other than relief sought by this Petition.
12
24. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5. Petitioners seek review and request
13
the opportunity to submit the relevant evidence that was improperly excluded at hearing
14
15 before the Respondent Rent Board.

16 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

17 (Declaratory Relief)
18
25. Petitioners incorporate by this reference each and all of the allegations of Paragraphs 1
19
through 24 hereof, as if fully set forth herein.
20
26. An actual controversy exists between the parties concerning their respective rights and
21
duties because Petitioners contend that Tenant of the Property, Mr. Petr Seckar,
22
23 improperly excluded relevant evidence at the hearing before the Respondent Rent Board,

24 and, as such, Respondent Rent Board determined that the annual allowable rent increase
25 should be calculated on a base rent of $500, instead of $1,450, thereby making
26
Petitioners liable for the sum of $40,981.10 to Tenant for rent overpayments for the
27
period from May 1, 2019 through November 20, 2022.
28

Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate 6
1 PRAYER
2 WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully pray as follows:
3
1. Under the First Cause of Action, that a peremptory writ of administrative mandamus
4
issue under seal of this Court commanding Respondent Rent Board to set aside its
5
decision and reconsider Petitioners case in light of the relevant evidence improperly
6
7 excluded at the hearing before Respondent Rent Board;

8 2. Under the Second Cause of Action, that this Court grant Petitioners declaratory relief;

9 3. Under each Cause of Action, this Court award Petitioners their costs of suit herein,
10 including out-of-pocket expenses and reasonable attorneys’ fees; and
11
4. Under each Cause of Action, that this Court grant Petitioners such other, different, or
12
further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
13
Respectfully Submitted,
14
15 Dated: March 5, 2024 SCHINNER & SHAIN, LLP

16
17 ___________________________
MICHAEL G. SCHINNER
18 Attorneys for PETITIONERS
MEL and NUANNOI MURPHY
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate 7
1 EXHIBIT A

2
3 COPY OF PETITIONERS APPEAL TO RESPONDENT RENT BOARD

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate 9
San Francisco Residential Rent
Stabilization and Arbitration Board
NOTE: Any party may appeal the Decision of the Administrative Law Judge. Such appeal
must be filed no later than fifteen (15) calendar days after the date of mailing of the
Administrative Law Judge’s Decision. The filing of a timely appeal will stay only that
portion of the Administrative Law Judge’s Decision that permits payment, refund, offsetting
or adding rent. If you are filing a late appeal, you must state the reason in writing and include
it with your appeal so that the Board can determine if there is good cause for the untimely
filing. The filing of an untimely appeal does not stay any portion of the Administrative Law Rent Board Date Stamp
Judge’s decision.

APPEAL TO THE BOARD
THIS APPEAL FORM MUST BE SUBMITTED AS FOLLOWS:

1. Appeals must be filed either by email (no copies required unless your appeal is over 40 pages, in which case it must
be filed either by mail, delivery service or at the front counter with 16 copies). If filed by email, appeals must be filed
as a single pdf document (no screenshots, links, videos or the like are accepted). Please do not submit multiple pdfs
or multiple emails. If your appeal cannot be provided in a single pdf, please file it in person, by mail or delivery service.
All supporting documents must be provided with the appeal to the board form.

2. If it is necessary to submit any supplemental reply to another party's (or the Rent Board's) submission on appeal,
such reply must be submitted no later than 5 days before the Board meeting in the same manner as set forth above.
Any documents received within 5 days of a Board Meeting will be provided to the Commission but may not be
considered. Please do not file any documents both by email and in hard copy, choose one or the other. If you wish
the Commission to have color copies, do not file by email.

3. If you are filing the appeal because you did not receive the notice of hearing, you must attach a completed Declaration
of Non-Receipt of Notice of Hearing form, which is available at the Rent Board’s office and in the Forms Center on
our website at https://sf.gov/rentboard.

T220449 Michael J. Berg 1/17/2023
Case Number Name of Administrative Law Judge Date Decision was Mailed

MEL and NUANNOI MURPHY o Landlord o Tenant o Master Tenant o Subtenant
Name of Party Filing Appeal (Please Print)

1756 BROADWAY STREET, #7 San Francisco, CA 94109
Street Number of the Unit on Appeal Street Name Unit Number Zip Code

I appeal the Administrative Law Judge’s Decision because I believe that the Administrative Law Judge erred or
abused his or her discretion in the following respects (attached additional pages as necessary):
This appeal is made pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §1008, on
the basis of new or different facts and circumstances that were not disclosed or
otherwise available to LANDLORD RESPONDENTS prior to the Rent Board’s
final decision.

NOTE: THE RENT BOARD WILL MAIL A COPY OF THIS APPEAL TO THE OTHER PARTY(IES). HOWEVER, THE PARTIES MUST SERVE EACH
OTHER WITH ALL OTHER DOCUMENTS FILED AFTER THE INTIAL FILING OF THIS APPEAL, AND INDICATE YOU HAVE DONE SO.

11/03/2023
Date Signature*

*If representative, print name Michael Schinner

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED ON PAGE TWO OF THIS FORM
556 Appeal Form 5/5/23

25 Van Ness Avenue #320 www.sf.gov/rentboard Phone 415.252.4600
San Francisco, CA 94102-6033 rentboard@sfgov.org
APPEAL TO THE BOARD (page two)
Tenant or Subtenant Information: * If there is more than one tenant, attach additional names and addresses.

Petr Seckar
First Name Middle Initial Last Name

1756 Broadway St #7 San Francisco CA 94109
Mailing Address: Street Number Street Name Unit Number City State Zip Code

Primary Phone Number Email Address

Tenant or Subtenant Representative Information:

First Name Middle Initial Last Name

Mailing Address: Street Number Street Name Unit Number City State Zip Code

Primary Phone Number Email Address

Landlord or Master Tenant Information: * If there is more than one landlord, attach additional names and addresses.
Mel Murphy
First Name Middle Initial Last Name

4153 24th Street San Francisco CA 94114
Mailing Address: Street Number Street Name Unit Number City State Zip Code

Primary Phone Number Email Address

Landlord or Master Tenant Representative Information:
Michael Schinner
First Name Middle Initial Last Name

96 Jessie Street San Francisco CA 94105
Mailing Address: Street Number Street Name Unit Number City State Zip Code

415-369-9050 schinner@schinner.com
Primary Phone Number Email Address

Other Party Information: Please specify the other party’s role in this case

First Name Middle Initial Last Name

Mailing Address: Street Number Street Name Unit Number City State Zip Code

Primary Phone Number Email Address

556 Appeal Form 5/5/23

25 Van Ness Avenue #320 www.sf.gov/rentboard Phone 415.252.4600
San Francisco, CA 94102-6033 rentboard@sfgov.org
1 MICHAEL G. SCHINNER (SBN 142363)
DENISE R. PRITCHARD (SBN 346469)
2 SCHINNER & SHAIN, LLP
96 JESSIE STREET
3 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 369-9050
4 Fax: (415) 369-9053
5 Attorneys for LANDLORD RESPONDENTS
6 MEL and NUANNOI MURPHY
7
8
RESIDENTIAL RENT STABILIZATION AND ARBITRATION BOARD
9
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
10
11
IN RE: 1756 BROADWAY STREET, #7 ) CASE NO. T220449
12 )
PETR SECKAR, ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
13 ) AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
TENANT PETITIONER, ) RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING
14 ) RESPONDENTS APPEAL TO THE RESIDENTIAL
) RENT STABILIZATION BOARD
15 and )
)
16 MEL and NUANNOI MURPHY, )
)
17 LANDLORD RESPONDENTS. )
)
18
19
INTRODUCTION
20
In December 2022, LANDLORD RESPONDENTS filed an Appeal (Appeal No. AL220057)
21
22 to the Residential Rent Stabilization Board, City and County of San Francisco (the “Rent Board”)
23 for the real property located at 1756 Broadway Street #7, San Francisco, California (the “Property”).
24
On January 17, 2023, the Rent Board denied the Appeal, and rendered the decision by the
25
Administrative Law Judge as Final. LANDLORD RESPONDENTS hereby move for an
26
27 order requesting a motion for reconsideration of the order denying LANDLORD RESPONDENTS
28 appeal to the Rent Board. This Motion is made pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF 1
ORDER DENYING RESPONDENTS APPEAL TO THE RESIDENTIAL RENT STABILIZATION BOARD
1
§1008, on the basis of new or different facts and circumstances that were not disclosed or otherwise
2
3 available to LANDLORD RESPONDENTS prior to the Rent Board’s final decision.
4 STATEMENT OF FACTS
5
1. The Property is located at 1756 Broadway Street in San Francisco. The building consists
6
of approximately seven residential units. There are no commercial units.
7
8 2. On or around July 26, 2021, the LANDLORD RESPONDENTS (and current owners)

9 purchased the Property from Mr. Jonathan Tourzan and received a rent roll in escrow that showed
10
that the TENANT PETITIONER’s rent was $1,450 per month, and closing statement that stated the
11
TENANT PETITIONER’s deposit was $1,500.
12
13 3. The LANDLORD RESPONDENTS had no prior knowledge of TENANT

14 PETITIONER’s initial $500 base rent or rent history. As a result, on June 1, 2022, LANDLORD
15
RESPONDENTS increased TENANT PETITIONER’s rent from $1,450 to $1,483.35 with a written
16
notice of the rent increase.
17
18 4. On May 24, 2022, TENANT PETITIONER filed a petition alleging that the LANDLORD

19 RESPONDENTS increased the rent over the allowable limits and requesting a determination of the
20
TENANT PETITIONER’s lawful rent.
21
5. A remote hearing was held August 25, 2022, and the record was closed on September 1,
22
23 2022.
24 6. During the hearing, TENANT PETITIONER testified that he moved into the vacant
25
subject unit #7 on April 1, 2011, and paid the owner, John B. Hoagland Living Trust, an initial base
26
rent of $500 per month. TENANT PETITIONER stated that the initial base rent was not increased
27
28 and remained at $500 from move-in date to August 31, 2016. TENANT PETITIONER also testified

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF 2
ORDER DENYING RESPONDENTS APPEAL TO THE RESIDENTIAL RENT STABILIZATION BOARD
1
that on September 16, 2016, the new owner, Mr. Tourzan, orally raised the tenant’s rent from $500
2
3 to $1,450 per month and requested a deposit of $1,500 per month. TENANT PETITIONER testified
4 that he paid rental obligations of $1,450 per month to the landlords of the Property from September
5
2016 through May 2022.
6
7. The Administrative Law Judge, Michael J. Berg rendered a final decision on November
7
8 28, 2022, granting TENANT PETITIONER’s petition and ordering LANDLORD RESPONDENTS
9 to pay the sum of $40,981.10 to the TENANT PETITIONER for rent overpayments for the period
10
from May 1, 2019, through November 30, 2022.
11
6. LANDLORD RESPONDENTS filed an Appeal (Appeal No. AL220057) to the Rent
12
13 Board within 15 calendar days from the date of the Administrative Law Judge decision, and
14 subsequently on January 17, 2023, the Rent Board denied LANDLORD RESPONDENTS Appeal
15
and rendered the Administrative Law Judge’s decision final.
16
9. On March 3, 2023, LANDLORD RESPONDENTS became aware of the new facts that
17
18 TENANT PETITIONER did not disclose during his testimony, including that (a) TENANT
19 PETITIONER’s initial base rent amount of $500 per month was a result of special relationship with
20
the previous owner and landlord of the property, the John B. Hoagland Living Trust, and (b)
21
TENANT PETITIONER negotiated and agreed, in writing, to the rent increases proposed by Mr.
22
23 Tourzan on September 14, 2016. The Court should relieve LANDLORD RESPONDENTS as a
24 result of newly discovered evidence that by due diligence could not have been discovered during the
25
hearing. LANDLORD RESPONDENTS were not aware that TENANT PETITIONER paid a
26
significantly below market initial base rent due to TENANT PETITIONER’s special relationship
27
28 with the prior owner as a caretaker. A true and correct copy of the TENANT PETITIONER’s party

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF 3
ORDER DENYING RESPONDENTS APPEAL TO THE RESIDENTIAL RENT STABILIZATION BOARD
1
admission is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
2
3 ARGUMENT

4 California Code of Civil Procedure §1008 permits a party to request reconsideration of an
5
order. Section 1008(b) states:
6
A party who originally made an application for an order which was refused in whole
7
8 or part, or granted conditionally or on terms, may make a subsequent application for

9 the same order upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, in which case it
10
shall be shown by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what
11
judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts,
12
13 circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown. For a failure to comply with this

14 subdivision, any order made on a subsequent application may be revoked or set aside
15
on ex parte motion.
16
The Rent Board Rules and Regulations Section 6.11 provides that a rent increase that
17
18 exceeds allowable annual and banked amounts may be justified if it is established that the rent for a
19 unit is significantly below those of comparable units in the same general area due to extraordinary
20
circumstances. Moreover, under special circumstances, rent increases are permitted when the initial
21
base rent of a unit is set in a very low amount, or the rent was not increased, or the rent was only
22
23 increased negligible amounts during the tenancy as a result of a special relationship between the
24 landlord and tenant or other extraordinary circumstances unrelated to market conditions.
25
In this case, the 190% increase from $500 to $1,450 on September 16, 2016, is lawful
26
because TENANT PETITIONER’s initial base rent of $500 was a result of a special relationship
27
28 between TENANT PETITIONER and the prior owner of the Property (the John B. Hoagland Living

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF 4
ORDER DENYING RESPONDENTS APPEAL TO THE RESIDENTIAL RENT STABILIZATION BOARD
1
Trust). TENANT PETITIONER paid a significantly lower rent compared to other comparable units
2
3 on the market as a result of an employment agreement in which TENANT PETITIONER served as
4 caretaker to the John B. Hoagland Living Trust. As a result of Mr. Tourzan’s purchase of the
5
property in 2016, TENANT PETITIONER was no longer employed as a caretaker for the John B.
6
Hoagland Living Trust, and TENANT PETITIONER negotiated and agreed to a rent increase, in
7
8 writing, with Mr. Tourzan on September 14, 2016.
9 The Administrative Law Judge Order of refunds of rent overpayments, in the amount of
10
$40,981.10, is not justified because TENANT PETITIONER failed to disclose that he had a special
11
relationship with the John B. Hoagland Living Trust that resulted in him paying an initial base rent
12
13 amount of $500.00 per month, an amount significantly below the rent for comparable units in the
14 same general area.
15
The Rent Board was operating under mistaken assumption that the rent increases were not
16
subject to extraordinary circumstances. The TENANT PETITIONER’s initial base rent was
17
18 significantly less than market rent because of TENANT PETITIONER’s special relationship with
19 the John B. Hoagland Living Trust. TENANT PETITIONER failed to disclose the special
20
relationship or that he negotiated, in writing, to the rent increases in September 2016 with Mr.
21
Tourzan.
22
23 CONCLUSION

24 For all the foregoing reasons, LANDLORD RESPONDENTS respectfully request that the
25
Court grant LANDLORD RESPONDENTS motion for reconsideration of the order denying
26
LANDLORD RESPONDENTS appeal to the Rent Board on the basis of new facts and
27
28 circumstances, as shown by the Declarations of LUCY YEUNG, MIRELLA WEBB, MEL

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF 5
ORDER DENYING RESPONDENTS APPEAL TO THE RESIDENTIAL RENT STABILIZATION BOARD
1
MURPHY, and NUANNOI MURPHY, attached hereto, as well as on all the papers, pleadings, and
2
3 records on file in this action.
4
5
6 Dated: October 31, 2023 SCHINNER & SHAIN, LLP

7
/s/ Michael G. Schinner
___________________________
8 MICHAEL G. SCHINNER
Attorney for Landlord Respondents
9 MEL and NUANNOI MURPHY
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF 6
ORDER DENYING RESPONDENTS APPEAL TO THE RESIDENTIAL RENT STABILIZATION BOARD
1 MICHAEL G. SCHINNER (SBN 142363)
DENISE R. PRITCHARD (SBN 346469)
2 SCHINNER & SHAIN, LLP
96 JESSIE STREET
3 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 369-9050
4 Fax: (415) 369-9053
5 Attorney for LANDLORD RESPONDENTS
6 MEL and NUANNOI MURPHY
7
8
RESIDENTIAL RENT STABILIZATION AND ARBITRATION BOARD
9
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
10
11 IN RE: 1756 BROADWAY STREET, #7 ) CASE NO. T220449
)
12 PETR SECKAR, ) DECLARATION OF MEL MURPHY, IN SUPPORT
) OF LANDLORD RESPONDENTS MOTION FOR
13 TENANT PETITIONER, ) RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING
) RESPONDENTS APPEAL TO THE RESIDENTIAL
14 ) RENT STABILIZATION BOARD.
and )
15 )
)
16 MEL and NUANNOI MURPHY, )
)
17 LANDLORD RESPONDENTS. )
)
18 )
)
19 )

20
DECLARATION OF MEL MURPHY
21
I, MEL MURPHY declare the following:
22
23 1. I am the owner and landlord for the real property located at and commonly known as 1756
24 Broadway Street #7, San Francisco, California (the “Property”), and have personal knowledge of the
25 facts contained herein.
26
27
28

DECLARATION OF MEL MURPHY 1
1 2. I submit this declaration in support of LANDLORD RESPONDENTS motion for reconsideration

2 of the order denying LANDLORD RESPONDENTS appeal to the Residential Rent Stabilization
3
Board, City and County of San Francisco (the "Rent Board")..
4
3. On July 26,2021, my wife and I purchased the Property from Mr. Jonathan Tourzan (the previous
5
owner and landlord).
6
7 4. At no time prior to purchasing the Property was it disclosed that TENANT PETITIONER rented
8 his unit (unit #7) from the previous owner, the John B. Hoagland Living Trust, at an initial base rent

9 amount of$500.00 per month, nor that Mr. Tourzan had imposed a rent increase of 190% from

lO $500.00 to $1,400.00 on September 16, 2016. During escrow, the Seller's Disclosure only disclosed
11
a garbage lien from 2020, and that a death occurred on the Property in unit #4 on December 2019.
12
The Seller's Disclosure. provided that there were no "tenants in the Property not covered by a written
13
lease or rental agreement for their units." The rent roll provided by Seller during escrow stated that
14
15 TENANT PETITIONER's rent was $1,450.00 per month and that.TENANT PETITIONER paid a

16 deposit of$1,500.00.

17 6. After the Rent Board issued .its final decision denying the LANDLORD RESPONDENTS appeal
18
on January 17, 2023, I became aware of new facts that were not presented to the Rent Board by
19
TENANT PETITIONER regarding the rent increase in 2016. On March 3, 2023, Ms. Mirella Webb
20
(Mr. Tourzan's real estate agent) informed Ms. Yeung through electronic communication that
21
TENANT PETITIONER paid !he John 8. Hoagland Living Trust an initial base rent amount of
22
23 $500.00 per month because of TENANT PETITIONER's special relationship with the John B.

24 Hoagland Living Trust as a full-time caretaker. As of March 3, 2023, I became aware that TENANT
25 PETITIONER paid an initial base rent significantly below the rent for comparable units in the same

26
general area as a result of his employment as a full time caretaker for the John B. Hoagland Living
27
Trust. The electronic communication provided to Ms. Yeung also consisted of a Party-Opponent
28
DECLARATION. OF MEL MURPHY 2
1 Admission showing that TEN WT PETITIONER negotiated with Mr. Tourzan, in writing, for the

2 rent increase on September 14, 2016. 7. At this time, I intend to file a motion for reconsideration
3
based on the new facts that came to my attention after the Rent Board issued its final decision
4
denying the LANDLORD RESPONDENTS appeal on January 17, 2023.
5
6
7
8 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

10 foregoing is true and correct.
11

13
14

15
Dated: 3/3/ 2023 2:38 PM
4
Re: Fwd: Fw: lease
5
To lucy Copy Ma rk Bonn

6
.)r
';"'~ Yes, will do.
7 On Fri, Mar 3. 2023, 1 :43 PM lucy < >wrote:

8 Hi Mirella.

Lastly, could I please trouble you to ask Jonathan tor a copy of the signed lease agreement? Although,
9 Jonathan mentioned lhat he could not find his signed lease agreement with Petr during our escrown transaction .
This is just incase that we needed.

10 Thank you again.
Lucy

11
On 03/03/2023 1:19 PM PST lucy < >wrote·
12
Thank you, M irella. for the emciil chain. Appreciated.
13
Unfortunately. Rent Board has dosed this case. The nel wrote:
17
Jonathan indiccites that Petr is lying and they negotiated a new lease . See chain below .•.
18
Mirella Webb
19 Senior Investment Advisor

20
Compass Commercial Tel: 415.814.6699
Cell: 41 5.640.4133
21 (FonneTly APR Investment Group)
1699 Van Ness Ave. 2nd Floor
San Francisco. CA 94109
22 M:JP. (\Nww.bo!).!!~9bbleam.com(
License CA: 01409540

23
24

25
26 ~Ups:li'Webmaol7 networl 3/3/2023 12:04 PM
3
Fwd: Fw: lease
4 To lucy < lucy@lyeung.com> •Mark Bonn

5 Jonathan indicates that Petr is lying and they negotiated a new lease. See chain below ...

6 Mirella Webb
Senior Investment Advisor
7
Compass Commercial Tel; 415.814.6699
8
(Formerly APR Investment Group) Cell: 415.640.4133

9 1699 Van Ness Ave. 2nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94109
License CA: 01409540
http ;//~'>\!~ ~2!l."!"e!!bleam...!f.9Jn/
10
11
12
13 - · - Forwarded message ···--
From: Jonathan Tourzan < >
Date: Fri. Mar 3. 2023 at 11 :59 AM
14 Subject: Fw: lease
To: Mirella Webb < >
15
Petr is lying. We negotiated a new lease. The $500 rent included his employment as a full time
16 caretaker.

17 From: petr seckar < ,. >
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 5:07 AM
To: Jonat han To urzan < >
18 Subject: Re: lease

19 Hi!!

20 The rent 1500 S ls ok but lf you could lower it to 1400$ that would be great .. .. If not Im ok with 1500$
I forgot the number 12 .Securit y deposit you said you can lower it t o 1500 S
21 Let me know when you want me to sign the lease
Thanks Peter
22
23
24
25 haps:J/wecma•r? necworksolulionsemail.comtappeu~e!pnnl.html?ptn\_ 16886724 75818
113

26
27
28
DECLARATION OF MIRELLA WEBB 4
1

2 716;23. 12:41 PM Professional Em3il_ Fwd_ ~w_ lease Printout

3
4
Od: Jonathan Tourzan < ' . >
5 Odeslano: 13. l
12 Sent: Monday, September 12. 2016 8:27 PM
To: Jonathan Tourzan
13 Subject: Re: lease

14 HI !! I couldnt add the cements to the document then i w ill write them here .....

15
my fu ll name for the lease; Petr Seckar
16 14..... only two electric operated items may be plugged in any electric receptacle {if you can take
this out J
17 15 .... not sure if should be there but i guess doesnt really matter ...
19....tenant can put pictures at walls
18
add 30 ... Tenant can use or have access to garden area
19
i hope it is not confusing ... let me know when you want me to sign the lease
20 Thanks Peter

21 Od: Jonathan Tourzan < _ >
Odeslano: 7. zafi 2016 21:00
22 Komu: ,. , !'

Predmet: Fwd: lease
23
24
Sent from my iPhone
25
26 https:liwebm1117 nelworksolutiDnsemail com/appsuilelorinl.html?pronl_ 16886724758 18
213

27
28
DECLARATION OF MIRELLA WEBB 5
1
716123. 12:4 1 PM Professional Email_ F\lld_ Fw_ lease Printout
2
3
Begin forwarded message:
4
5 From: Jonathan Tourzan < >
Date: September 7, 2016 at 11:09:44 AM PDT
6 To: Jonathan Tourzan < >
Subject: lease
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

20
21
22
23
24

25
26
27 https:ltwebmail7 networksolu~onsemail.com/appauitelprint html?prin t_ 1688672475818
3/3

DECLARATION OF MIRELLA WEBB 6
1 MICHAEL G. SCHINNER (SBN 142363)
DENISE R. PRITCHARD (SBN 346469)
2 SCHINNER & SHAIN, LLP
96 JESSIE STREET
3 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 369-9050
4 Fax: (415) 369-9053
5 Attorneys for LANDLORD RESPONDENTS
6 MEL and NUANNOI MURPHY
7
8
RESIDENTIAL RENT STABILIZATION AND ARBITRATION BOARD
9
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
10
11 IN RE: 1756 BROADWAY STREET, #7 ) CASE NO. T220449
)
12 PETR SECKAR, ) DECLARATION OF LUCY YEUNG, IN SUPPORT
) OF LANDLORD RESPONDENTS MOTION FOR
13 TENANT PETITIONER, ) RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING
) RESPONDENTS APPEAL TO THE RESIDENTIAL
14 ) RENT STABILIZATION BOARD; EXHIBITS A-C.
and )
15 )
)
16 MEL and NUANNOI MURPHY, )
)
17 LANDLORD RESPONDENTS. )
)
18 )
)
19 )

20
21 DECLARATION OF LUCY YEUNG

22 I, LUCY YEUNG, declare the following:
23
1. I am a California real estate agent for “SF City Properties,” a San Francisco real estate company,
24
and I have personal knowledge of the facts contained herein.
25
26 2. I submit this declaration in support of LANDLORD RESPONDENTS motion for reconsideration
27 of the order denying LANDLORD RESPONDENTS appeal to the Residential Rent Stabilization

Case Info

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

March 06, 2024

Case Filing Date

March 06, 2024

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Complaint,Petition: MEL MURPHY ET AL VS. RESIDENTIAL RENT STABILIZATION AND ARBITRATION

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties