A San Francisco tenant from Russia in federal immigration custody is being evicted by his landlord in absentia while he sits in a detention center.
The man was set to lose his housing Monday due to his inability to appear in court. But after publication of this article, the nonprofit Eviction Defense Collaborative was able to reach the man and sign up to represent him. That will give him legal representation during the eviction trial.
The 42-year-old, who fled Russia due to political persecution, has an eviction trial set for Monday morning at the McAllister Street eviction court. Mission Local is not identifying the man by name for fear of repercussion from federal immigration agents.
Lawyers representing the San Francisco landlord have refused to reschedule the man’s eviction hearing, even though they are aware of the tenant’s detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, according to attorneys with the Eviction Defense Collaborative.
The group has been working with the tenant since he first received notification of his eviction at the end of October.
The legal firm for the landlord, a limited liability corporation titled 33 8th Street, declined a request to postpone the trial, saying that the Eviction Defense Collaborative was not the “attorney of record” and could not ask for a continuance.
That firm, Bornstein Law, did not respond to multiple requests for comment, nor did the people behind the LLC. Trinity Properties, one of San Francisco’s largest landlords, which owns a building at that address, also did not respond.
Under normal circumstances, the man would have to appear in court to ask for his eviction trial to be postponed. But, because he is in a detention center, he cannot do so. ICE did not respond to requests for comment about whether they would allow the man to appear, even virtually.
The building the tenant is being evicted from appears to be Trinity Place at 33 Eighth St. Mission Local reached out to Ashish Bartaula, the agent for 33 8th Street LLC, which is filing the suit. Bartaula did not return phone calls.
The Russian immigrant has been detained since Jan. 5, and is currently in ICE custody at the California City Detention Center, an immigration detention center in a former men’s prison about 100 miles north of Los Angeles.
His “no-show” would have resulted in automatic eviction, according to the Eviction Defense Collaborative, until the group was able to sign up to represent him. The man could still be evicted on the merits of the case.
In San Francisco, tenants are entitled by law to an attorney in eviction cases, and the 42-year-old showed up to the nonprofit for an intake as part of the process of getting representation in November.
The man is being evicted for alleged nonpayment of rent. Jessica Santillo, another attorney with Eviction Defense Collaborative, said it takes the landlord “at their word” about the rationale, but wants the man to have his time in front of a judge.
“Everyone deserves their day of court. To have due process, they need to be able to participate in their case,” she said. “If the landlord is true to their word and is seeking repayment, that is best facilitated by participation of the tenant.”
This tenant’s case raises questions about how people in immigration detention across the country may be denied due process to appear for non-immigration court hearings, such as civil suits, housing court or family court.
When individuals are incarcerated in jails or prisons, it is never a problem to represent them, said Ora Prochovnick, the director of litigation and policy at the Eviction Defense Collaborative. Attorneys simply visit their clients behind bars, the clients appear virtually or the lawyer gets permission to represent the client on their behalf.
But in this instance, the eviction nonprofit did not receive a response from the ICE detention center where the tenant is being held. It was unable to reach him until after publication of this piece.
“What I regret is that, if he returns home, he won’t have a home to return to, and how extremely unfair that is,” said Prochovnick.
“San Francisco voters created a tenant rights counsel program, because we realized housing is a necessity and the importance of having a day in court. This person is being denied their due process because of the federal government’s approach to immigration issues,” said Prochovnick.
Himanshu Khatri, the immigration attorney working to get the man released from detention, said the episode is a travesty of justice.
It is “very unprofessional and very opportunistic” for the landlord to do this, he said, “because they know he can’t be present, because he is detained.”
This piece was updated on Feb. 28 to reflect the fact that the Eviction Defense Collaborative will be able to represent the man in court.
The guy was here illegally and wasn’t paying rent? I don’t see why he shouldn’t be evicted.
If someone alleged that you were here illegally, should they have to provide evidence? Or should they be allowed to just lock you up with no pesky evidence or review?
Hmm, the tenant was served with notice, apparently for non-payment of rent, in October.
He was detained on January 5, more than two months later.
It’s now been four months since notice was served, with apparently no rent payments in that time (the landlord’s attorneys would have to tell the court if payment had been received).
Lawyers who are not the attorneys of record for the tenant asked for a continuance, which would cost the landlords even more in lost rent.
The landlord’s attorneys refused.
No information is provided about the merits of the immigration detention, but there appears to be no defense to the eviction (at least nothing is presented here).
There is a lot to be upset and outraged about these days. This one doesn’t really fall into that category.
It’s a little disturbing that you say you’re an attorney and yet your comment glosses over the actual issue at hand: he is prevented from attending his own trial.
If you were, say, locked up on a DUI charge and were prevented from attending, or having a continuance for, a family court or bankruptcy court hearing because of it, you wouldn’t be so sanguine.
A non-payment of rent eviction is probably the easiest eviction for a landlord to win. Unless the tenant can prove the rent is paid, then he is out.
So the result here will be the same regardless of whether the tenant can appear or not, assuming that rent has not been paid.
And it is now too late for someone else to pay that rent, as it has to be paid within 3 days of the Notice to Quit. Never ignore a pay-or-quit notice.
If it was that easy to eve it rents would be lower and there’d be more landlords in CA.
Absolutely untrue. Most non payment eviction cases are resolved through a stipulated agreement either allowing tenants to stay if they pay back rent and agree to pay on time, or with a move-out agreement forgiving back rent that allows tenants not to have an eviction on their record. The landlord and ICE’s actions are preventing the tenant from having the due process other tenants enjoy.
Julien, that is not true. Most landlords love an opportunity to evict a controlled tenant, so that they can get a market rent for their housing unit.
So once that 3-day notice period is elapsed, an eviction proceeds. It is a slam dunk for the landlord.
You are probably thinking more of some 30-day notices to quit on other grounds. Those are more likely to be negotiated in the manner you suggest, as the outcome is harder to predict.
Tenants with a below market rent should always pay in full and on time. Because it only takes a few days for their tenancy to become doomed.
How exactly would he prove anything from a detention center?
If you were in his position, would you be okay with being prevented from attending your own trial because you’d been detained for a civil violation for a period of 3+ months, with no legal avenue for release?
I have absolutely ZERO sympathy for deadbeats who can’t pay rent and, instead of leaving, simply stay on without paying.
The worst humans are in charge right now. It’s shameful. And somehow they’re the moral authority to religious people.
This story is missing a lot of information that would slow the reading to make an informed opinion about this situation. Did you investigate whether or not his rent was actually paid? Was he the only tenant, is there anyone that can collaborate his whether or his rent was paid? Was he here in a visa he simply over stayed or did he enter the country illegally? What were the circumstances that led to his detention? Were the proceedings begun after he was detained? Considering our laws here in California, and specifically San Francisco, this process likely started months ago (if not years). Simply being unable to attend the hearings because he was detained/arrested isn’t the story here, I imagine this has happened to others that were detained/arrested. Is this only a story because he’s an immigrant or because he’s an undocumented immigrant? That fact that this information is a not provided leads the reader to believe that the reporter lacks the diligence, has a bias or an agenda, or simply expects the reader to “fill in the blanks” with their own opinions. In my opinion it is this type of reporting that is adding to the political and social divide in this country. I sorely long for the days of “just the facts”. I believe this to be true for almost all reporting today, left, right, and in between.
Let’s not jump to conclusions, there are several defenses the tenant could avail himself of against this eviction, such as landlord refusal to make repairs.
Not really. Is it possible for tenant facing eviction for nonpayment to beat the case in court and win? Yes. But what does that tenant win? The tenant wins the right to pay the rent back in 5 days or be evicted anyway. According to the article, the eviction started in October 2025 and landlord still has not prevailed in the eviction case. This means no rent has been paid for at least 5 months. 33 8th St. is a new building. Rents are at least $3k per month. So unless tenant has $15k to pay, they are going to lose the case. “But doesn’t the Court reduce your rent if you win the eviction case?” Sure, but is the court going to reduce the rent in a new building more than 50%? No.
The real question is why the tenant is being denied his right to attend the eviction trial.