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.

Contracts
Breach of Contract
Unlawful and Unfair Business Practices

City and County of San Francisco, The People of the State of California, by and through Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco v. Melvin Lee, Teresa Wong, Van Ness Care Center Inc., San Francisco Care Center L.P., Mel Lee Management Inc., and Doe One through Doe Fifty, inclusive

Published: Sep. 15, 2023 | Result Date: May 9, 2023 | Filing Date: Mar. 23, 2018 |

Case number: CGC-18-565184 Settlement –  $825,000

Court

San Francisco County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Jennifer E. Choi
(Office of the San Francisco City Attorney)

Megan Elizabeth Ryan
(Office of the San Francisco City Attorney)


Defendant

Michelle L. Landry
(Vedder Price LLP)

Mindy M. Wong
(Vedder Price LLP)


Facts

The City and County of San Francisco brought this action against defendants, who won a bid to purchase and develop a property into a senior assisted living facility and set aside a certain number of units for low-income seniors for 50 years. The City contended that despite the building's completion in 2004, defendants failed their obligation to rent out units to low-income seniors and also removed units without the requisite permits to create luxury apartments for non-seniors. The Complaint sought both declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging causes of action for unlawful business practices, public nuisance, non-compliance with San Francisco Building Code, and breach of contract. After a bench trial, the Court found that defendants had illegally removed units in violation of the San Francisco Building Code, public nuisance laws, and the Unfair Competition Law and imposed $355,201 in civil penalties against defendants. The Court found the contract's affordability requirement void for vagueness.

Result

Following the court's finding, the parties negotiated a settlement of $825,000 to resolve outstanding attorney's fees.


#141434

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

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