Screenshot from Valleywag's site.

Google lawyer Jack Halprin. The guy behind the evictions at 812 Guerrero? Him. We mentioned the April protest outside his seven-unit Guerrero spot.

And that a wrongful eviction lawsuit was filed against Halprin, in response to the heave-ho Ellis Act notices he gave tenants in February of this year.

Over at Valleywag, we found a copy of different lawsuit — a brisk read, date-stamped June, railing against Halprin and Daniel Ortiz and a biz entity called DOES 1-20 — that was entered by Guerrero tenants/plaintiffs Claudia Tirado, Alex Barros, Matthew Evan Wolkenstein, Christopher Sideris, and Rebecca Bauknight.

The lawsuit cites repair neglect and mold and excessive car towing and entering tenant homes without proper notice and installing a camera outside Bauknight’s door after the pro-tenant rally in April. Plus more examples described as “interference, interruption, deprivation and disturbance.”

That VW story also reports that Halprin (a defendant, keep up) refused to be served with said lawsuit.

There’s an image of the legal papers on the sidewalk…one of the plaintiffs told Valleywag:

“The process server, in front of witnesses, threw the papers down at Halprin’s feet and walked away. A half hour later, as I was walking to work, I saw the papers were still there and took that picture.”

Follow Us

Join the Conversation


Please keep your comments short and civil. We will zap comments that fail to adhere to these short and very easy-to-follow rules.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. I’m usually one to jump on a poorly written article, but any problems with this one pale in comparison to what’s being written about. The facts documented in the article — that there is a lawsuit alleging numerous violations of San Francisco’s rent ordinance — aren’t in dispute. If the allegations are true, then the defendant looks pretty bad. Simply trying to undermine the news story isn’t a very effective way to defend him.

    1. The claims made are just allegations, as you acknowledge. So why do you say that the facts “aren’t in dispute? They are in dispute and a court has not yet ruled.

      Anyone can allege anything but the only thing we know for sure is that this property owner did not want to share his home with others and the law provides him with the means to ensure that happens, as it should do.

  2. This whole article is so poorly written and conceived it discredits your entire blog/newspaper and your position against Mr. Halprin. You should consider taking it town and rewriting the entire piece.

  3. What are you even trying to say in this article?

    “a biz entity called DOES 1-20″…AHAHHHHAHAHAA

    Oh man. At least you nailed it with the comedy this morning. Here’s a hint to help ease the author’s stupidity: John Doe

    Not to mention the lengthy run on sentences, lack of commas, etc.

    I thought ML was trying to feature good journalism?

  4. What’s with the attitude keliiiiiii?

    The tenant lawsuits sound like a bunch of whiner BS anyways. Who gives a shit about repairs if their asses are gonna be otta there soon? And the camera? Give me a fucking break. If a bunch of housing loonies showed up at my doorstep I’d put a camera up too. He should sue for noise and harassment.