Tenants can fight evictions and win



By Tyler Macmillan

OPINION Every year, around 3,500 formal eviction lawsuits are filed against residential tenants in San Francisco Superior Court. Contrary to popular belief, the eviction lawsuit — known as an "unlawful detainer" — is one of the fastest moving cases in the entire civil system. While we've all heard anecdotes about how it can take years to remove San Francisco tenants from their homes, tenants sued for eviction experience civil litigation at warp speed.

More than a third of those sued for eviction miss the five-day window the law provides to file a response with the court. In 2013, 1,294 of the tenant households that were sued for eviction in the city missed that deadline to respond. The strong tenant protections found in San Francisco's Rent Ordinance and California law don't mean much to those who miss their five-day deadline: Sheriff's deputies clear the property just a few weeks after the case is filed if you don't respond. So much for due process.

Securing tenants due process rights in San Francisco has been our job at the Eviction Defense Collaborative (EDC) since 1996. At our drop-in legal clinic, our team of attorneys and volunteers assist over 94 percent of all tenants who respond to their eviction lawsuit in San Francisco each year. Although our office is open Monday through Friday to help tenants respond to the lawsuit on time, nine out of 10 tenants sued for eviction represent themselves for the duration of their case. Over 90 percent of landlords can afford to hire expert, aggressive attorneys to evict their tenants — very few tenants can afford to hire a private attorney to defend their homes.

Unsurprisingly, tenants agree to move out in most eviction lawsuits — around four out of five tenants sued for eviction will settle the case with an agreement to leave their homes. And who could blame them? The choice of conducting a jury trial against a licensed attorney is not an appealing — or realistic — choice for a self-represented tenant. Without an attorney to stand up and fight for your rights at trial, those rights remain the empty, meaningless promises of the pay-to-play American legal system.

Of course, tenants who get represented by attorneys can win eviction cases — exactly the reason we started our Trial Project at EDC last year. Since the Trial Project launched, EDC staff attorneys have represented a small percentage of tenants facing the prospect of a jury trial on their own. Through the hard work of EDC staff attorneys (who on average earn less than $50,000 a year), the Trial Project enjoyed another jury trial victory in May. While very few eviction cases reach a verdict, this was EDC's third trial victory in the past year.

This particular jury verdict saved the home of a Spanish-speaking couple who has lived in the Mission District for the past 19 years. They have young children who attend the local public schools and attend church in the neighborhood. This family has limited income and would certainly have had to leave of San Francisco if it was evicted, uprooting the children and leaving behind its community.

The landlord had accused the family of not paying the rent — even though the family had repeatedly tried to pay. The jury agreed with the tenant, finding that the conditions on the property were so bad that the landlord wasn't entitled to the rent being demanded. The jury actually followed the law, and reduced the tenants' rent.

The heroes in this case are the tenants — their courage in standing up for their home and their civil rights is inspiring, and should be a lesson to tenants across the city. We need tenants in San Francisco to push back against this current wave of displacement and we're here to help.


The best that can normally be hoped for is that the tenant gets a couple of rent-free months, or a few thousand dollars. There are two reasons for that. The first is that a tenant cannot afford a lawyer, as you note. The second is that most UD's are based on valid causes, either tenant misbehavior or the LL wanting to occupy or change the use of the property.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 17, 2014 @ 2:38 pm

That's because this piece doesn't differentiate between a landlord evicting for nonpayment of rent or tenant misbehavior and say, evicting someone because they are living in a rent-controlled apartment and the LL wants to re-rent it at market rate. In their world all landlords are always evil, money grubbers who twirl their mustaches while all renters are decent, hardworking, salt-of-the-earth folks who can do no wrong.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 18, 2014 @ 7:05 pm

You might think what you're doing is good, but the truth is it just makes certain tenants less likely to be able to rent in SF because of the risk. It just makes it likely we would never choose to rent to a spanish speaking family with kids versus 3 tech employees looking to room together (Yes we rent out in SF and we only look for tech employees). There are also other characteristics we tend to avoid, but making it difficult to evict only hurts people at the margin. It wouldn't surprise me if EDC was funded by Bornstein and his friends because thats who ends up with the biggest gain out of this, and maybe the few fortunate ones you save while only speeding up the gentrification process.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 23, 2014 @ 2:13 am

are here illegally and therefore will not want to assert their legal rights for fear of being caught and deported.

Indeed, a landlords can get a vacancy at any time with a simple phone call to ICE.

That said, techies can pay more and will usually have ambition, meaning that they will move on rather than try and hoard the unit forever.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 23, 2014 @ 7:43 am

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.