Reidy v. City & Co. of San Francisco

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Filed 11/23/04 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE EDWARD REIDY, as Trustee, etc., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A105780 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al., (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. 503-607) Defendants and Appellants. ______________________________________/ ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING BY THE COURT: The opinion in the above-entitled matter filed on October 26, 2004, is modified as follows: 1. On page 1, first paragraph, fifth sentence, the abbreviation (HCO) is added at the end of Hotel Conversion and Demolition Ordinance so the sentence reads: The City and County of San Francisco (City) appeals a judgment granting the petition for writ of mandate by which respondent Edward Reidy, as trustee of the Olga Eugenia Lindemood Testamentary Trust (Trust), sought an order directing the City to expunge all notices recorded against three hotels owned by the Trust that referred to the City s Hotel Conversion and Demolition Ordinance (HCO) and/or Residential Hotel Sprinkler Ordinance. 1 2. On page 2, third paragraph, second sentence, the phrase the Hotel Conversion and Demolition Ordinance (HCO) is changed to the City s Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance so the sentence reads: The Ellis Act and the City s Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance require a property owner to give tenants 120 days notice of the termination of their tenancy. This modification does not change the judgment. The City s petition for rehearing is denied. Dated ____________ ______________________ P.J. 2 Trial court: San Francisco Superior Court Trial judge: Hon. James L. Warren Counsel for plaintiff and respondent: Andrew M. Zacks James B. Kraus Law Offices of Andrew M. Zacks Counsel for defendants and appellants: Dennis J. Herrera City Attorney Andrew W. Schwartz Deputy City Attorney 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.