Northern California Record

Sunday, November 17, 2019

Appeal court upholds exemption to Oakland's rent-adjustment ordinance

By Nicholas Gueguen | May 4, 2017


SAN FRANCISCO — The California First District Court of Appeal recently upheld the Alameda County Superior Court's decision to deny the plaintiff's petition to reverse course in the rent-adjustment suit, Mark Sherman vs. City of Oakland Rent Adjustment Board and Diane Michelsen et al.

In its April 26 decision, the appeals court said Mark Sherman wanted the writ of mandate "against the City of Oakland Rent Adjustment Board to compel the Rent Board to set aside its decision granting his landlords an exemption from the Oakland rent adjustment ordinance." 

The appeals court said in its decision that Sherman felt he didn't get "a fair hearing and the findings in support of the exemption decision are not supported by the evidence."

"Sherman filed a petition for writ of mandate in the superior court challenging the Rent Board’s decision," the appeals court said. "He argued the hearing officer abused her discretion by... applying unequal standards to the parties' evidence." 

Sherman also alleged the Rent Board abused its discretion when it denied him a fair hearing by failing to remand for consideration and barring him from participating in remand proceedings on three other units. The trial court had rejected the writ.

The appeals court said "Sherman contends he was denied a fair hearing because the hearing officer’s application of the rules of evidence was not even-handed, the Rent Board and trial court abused their discretion in refusing to remand for consideration of Sherman’s additional evidence and he was denied his due-process right to present evidence."

However, the appeals court wrote that "the record shows the hearing officer both admitted and considered all

of Sherman’s evidence." 

The appeals court ruled against Sherman's argument that the hearing officer did not fairly consider his evidence, holding that "it was not the hearing officer’s responsibility to object to or comment on weaknesses" in evidence.

With its decision, the appeals court decided that the Rent Board and the Michelsens would have the rights to receive costs.

Want to get notified whenever we write about any of these organizations ?

Sign-up Next time we write about any of these organizations, we'll email you a link to the story. You may edit your settings or unsubscribe at any time.

Organizations in this Story

California 1st District Court of AppealOakland Rent Adjustment Board