New Notice to Tenant Required by Rent Ordinance

The San Francisco Rent Board requires a “1007 Notice to Tenant Required by Rent Ordinance” to be served on any residential tenant to terminate tenancy.

This includes a 3 Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit, and any 30-60-90-120 Day Notice to Terminate Tenancy.

The form was initially mandated in November, 2015, and has been updated by an amendment to the ordinance effective 3/19/16.

This is being posted on 3/29/16 so you should check with the San Francisco Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board for any subsequent changes.

1007 Notice to Tenant

San Francisco Superior Court Due Diligence Requirements

San Francisco Superior Court has a rather formulaic due diligence requirement for substituted service of a summons and complaint pursuant to CCP sec. 415.20, when the defendant’s business hours are unknown.

This is predicated on a San Francisco DD Memo that originated back in 1989.  I recall that there was a prior similar memo to the one signed by then Presiding Judge Lillian Sing. This memo has been reduced to a Clerk’s DD Checklist used by the default clerk – a bright line test – to determine whether the process server has exercised proper “due diligence” when substituted service is effected. The intent is to require attempts at personal service allowing for each “work shift” to be considered.

Each court can decide what constitutes “due diligence”.  The appellate courts have not specifically defined due diligence (nor could they). Due diligence varies with every fact pattern, and circumstances change.

Each California county court exercises local judicial discretion. Each has due diligence rules which can be maddening to a process server.  Some are lax, others are strict. Most counties do not publish these rules. I’m wondering why these rules, memos, policies, etc. are such a closely guarded secret by the courts.

We have made an attempt to collect those that are in writing in our Process Server Resources Wiki page. Please forward to us any written rule you find to add to this list.

If the server does not comply with the substituted service requirements, the court may deem that the sufficient “due diligence requirement” was not met requiring re-service of the defendant.

Furthermore, a court’s “due diligence” requirement may not comport with service of unlawful detainer summons when applying for a posting order.  For instance, Alameda County Superior Court requires 5 attempts before considering issuance of a posting order. San Francisco Superior Court requires an unwritten rule requiring a span of 3 hours on different days.


San Francisco Superior Court E-filing Portal


In an apparent effort to comply with law and Rule of Court by allowing multiple vendors, the court has now instituted direct e-filing for $10.80 per filing. That apparently accompanies a $2.50 handling fee through another Electronic Service Provider (EFSP), making it roughly double the going rate for e-filing through File & ServeXpress that charges $7. A long, thorough article about how the San Francisco Superior Court mandatory e-filing effort has rolled out is posted by Courthouse News Service here. There are links to memos, a Court of Appeal petition for a stay filed by One Legal, Inc., a competitor that wants to participate as an EFSP at $4.95 per filing.

The article also calculates that the combined e-filing at $7 and accompanying e-service at $8 per service will amount to about $3M.

Since the San Francisco local rule requires paper courtesy copies to be delivered to the department, the copy fees and deliveries at an additional $25 will amount to another $3.5M. It will be cheaper to e-file and e-serve than copying, assembling, and sending a process server or messenger to the court and mailing to opposing counsel.

Just an aside, I was at court today, the first day after the “grace period” before mandatory e-filing kicked in. I was standing in line for an hour, waiting to see one of two clerks at a window. I waited for several pro pers to go to the window for 5 – 15 minutes each – signing their forms, assembling them appropriately for filing, and asking the clerk questions and getting answers they still couldn’t comprehend. Another process server who also waited an hour, presented an Answer for filing because his client tried to file it electronically and the system rejected it. The clerk sent him away and would not file it.

Fasten your seat belts. This will be a bumpy ride.

San Francisco Superior Court Announces Direct E-filing Portal

San Francisco Superior Court will begin direct E-filing through its own portal. Here is the court’s E-filing page, and the announcement. E-filings made at or after 4:00 PM will be considered filed the following court day.

New Court Holiday in September 2015 Will Affect Service and Calendaring

AB 1973 amended Govt. Code sec. 6700 relating to holidays, and “as of January 1, 2015, the fourth Friday in September, known as “Native American Day,” will be added to the list of “holidays in this state.”

Julie Goren, Esq., publisher of the “Litigation by the Numbers”, the Essential California Litigation Handbook, has posted a review of this change here: Native American Day, and how it will affect calendaring issues in September.

Mandatory E-Filing Starts in San Francisco Superior Court on Dec. 8, 2014

Process servers, messengers, and litigants will no longer be able to file documents in San Francisco Superior Court beginning December 8, 2014. Your only option will be to e-file through File & ServeXpress.

Other Electronic Filing Service Providers will be coming in 2015.