21
D. Claim Under The Oakland Just Cause For Eviction Ordinance
Having determined that Winslett has shown a likelihood of prevailing on her claims
under section 1942.5, subdivision (d), we turn now to her tenth cause of action for violation
of the Just Cause Ordinance. In her first amended complaint, Winslett alleges that Sagi
violated the Just Cause Ordinance by wrongfully endeavoring to recover possession of her
apartment, failing to make repairs, serving her with “misleading notices,” attempting to trick
her into moving out without just cause, and not advising her of her right to contact the rent
board.
The Just Cause Ordinance provides that “[n]o landlord shall endeavor to recover
possession, issue a notice terminating tenancy, or recover possession of a rental unit in the
city of Oakland unless the landlord is able to prove the existence of one of the following
grounds.” (Oakland Mun. Code, § 8.22.360, subd. (A).) Among the stated grounds for
eviction is when “[t]he tenant has failed to pay rent to which the landlord is legally entitled
pursuant to the lease or rental agreement and under provisions of state or local law, and said
failure has continued after service on the tenant of a written notice correctly stating the
amount of rent then due and requiring its payment within a period, stated in the notice, of
not less than three days. However, this subsection shall not constitute grounds for eviction
where tenant has withheld rent pursuant to applicable law.” (Oakland Mun. Code,
§ 8.22.360, subd. (A)(1).)
The Just Cause Ordinance also states that “[a] landlord shall not endeavor to recover
possession of a rental unit unless” a permitted ground for eviction is set forth “in the notice
and that ground is the landlord’s dominant motive for recovering possession and the
landlord acts in good faith in seeking to recover possession.” (Oakland Mun. Code,
§ 8.22.360, subd. (B)(2).) Additionally, a notice terminating a tenancy must include “[a]
statement that advice regarding the notice terminating tenancy is available from the Rent
Board.” (Oakland Mun. Code, § 8.22.360, subd. (B)(6)(b).) Finally, “[w]henever a
landlord . . . wrongfully endeavors to recover possession or recovers possession of a rental
unit in violation of Subsection 6(A) [8.22.360 A], the tenant . . . may institute a civil
proceeding for . . . money damages of not less than three times actual damages (including