This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Real Property
Rent Control
Unfair Competition

City and County of San Francisco, a Municipal Corporation, and the People of the State of California, by and through Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco v. Chuck M. Post, individually and dba ApartmentsInSf.com; Lem-Ray Properties I DE LLC; and Doe 1 through 50

Published: Dec. 13, 2019 | Result Date: Nov. 1, 2019 |

Case number: CGC-15-548551 Settlement –  $245,000

Judge

Harold E. Kahn

Court

San Francisco County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Molly J. Alarcon
(Office of the San Francisco City Attorney)

Sara Eisenberg
(Office of the City Attorney)

Brad Russi
(Office of the City Attorney)


Defendant

Edward C. Singer Jr.
(Law Offices of Edward C. Singer Jr.)


Facts

The City and County of San Francisco filed a lawsuit against Chuck Post and Lem-Ray properties because of their refusal to accept Section 8 housing vouchers.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that defendants discriminated against low income tenants by refusing to accept Section 8 housing vouchers. Plaintiff contended this violated the federal Fair Housing Act, the California Unfair Competition Act, and Section 3304 of the Police Code.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied the contentions. Defendants contended that plaintiff's claims failed because Section 3304 of the Police Code was preempted by the Fair Housing and Employment Act.

Result

The parties agreed to settle. Defendant agreed to pay $245,000, submit to court supervision of its Section 8 voucher processing, and to affirmatively advertise that it accepts Section 8 vouchers.

Other Information

Over the course of litigation, the court rejected defendants' preemption defense.


#133814

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390