The Trials Of Jose Morales

San Francisco, April 4-The court docket for room 509 at 400 McAllister Street, Room 509, listed the case as CUD-07-621852, ABT LLC A California Limited Liability Co. Vs Jose Morales et al.

It was an appeal of a lower court decision to evict Jose Morales, a 78 year old Latino citizen, who has lived in his Mission District rental home for over 40 years.

This eviction case was brought by the landlord under the Ellis Act, which gives property owners the power to kick out tenants if the former claim they want to go out of the landlord business.

According to the San Francisco Tenants Union, in that lower court case, “Judge Ronald Quidachay ordered the eviction of Jose Morales after denying him a jury trial. He had four good defenses that could have resulted in him defeating the eviction but he lost and never got a chance to tell his story to a jury.

“The case shows how scared pro-landlord courts are of eviction cases getting to a jury, knowing full well that when citizens looked at the acts and saw the impact …, they would not order the eviction.”

The appeals court judges were listed as Hon. Mary E. Wiss, Presiding Judge, as well as Associate Judges Diane E. Wick and Jerome T. Benson.

The no frills courtroom five stories above the Civic Center—or is that Eviction Center—had filled with mostly Morales supporters by the time this judicial trio appeared sometime after 10:30 a.m.

Morales himself was looking dapper in a gray suit. He was white haired, with an open friendly engaging manner. The et al was presumably the rest of us.

A tenant advocate at the proceeding told me that Jose Morales has been fighting off the landlord’s attempts to boot him since sometime around the turn of the 21st century.

Lawyers representing both sides sat at spare tables before the panel of judges. Sitting next to the landlord’s lawyer was an anxious looking man in a blue suit, presumably ABT LLC A California Limited Liability Co.

Jose Morales sat among his supporters further back.

His lawyer stood to argue that there were legal defects in the papers initially given to Morales, which started the latest attempt to evict him. The lawyer appealed, of course, to the judges to send the case back to the lower court to be retried. This, he said is because the San Francisco rent ordinance “allows tenants to assert procedural strict compliance.” This, he asserted, the landlord had failed to do.

All three judges peppered Jose Morales’ lawyer with questions during his presentation, all of which seemed to add up to, “Why are you wasting our time with this?”

When the landlord’s lawyer stood to make ABT LLC A California Limited Liability Co.’s case, he was not interrupted by the judges. They did ask him any questions.

Without looking at all of us in the peanut gallery though, the judges all knew we were looking keenly at them.

It was all over by 11:30. None of the judges had asked Jose Morales anything, or even openly acknowledged his presence. Yet Jose Morale’s spirit filled the room.

Because the real questions, unstated but hanging in the air five stories above the Civic Center, were echoing through Room 509 and beyond as we filed out.

Where will Jose Morales live if he loses his appeal, and how, in a merciless rental market that does not welcome elderly disabled Latinos? What will be his fate, and that of the Mission, of those all across the City of St. Francis who are being gobbled up and spit out by blue suited landlords who hide behind the law and soulless limited liabilities to do their dirty work?

And what were those judges were going to do with the rest of that Friday?

Jose Morales can stay in his home until they render a decision on his appeal. If he loses, then so do we all. Are those judges pondering that as well?