1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32 | However, no provisions are made for eviction due to reduced needs. Additionally, eviction due to changing needs also requires a reappraisal to document the newly identified needs. No such reappraisal were present in R1's file. The notice did not contain a statement regarding unlawful detainers, as required by HSC Section 1569.683(a)(4). This initial eviction notice was rescinded after an advisement by LPA Kimberly Viarella.
The second notice, dated Jan. 11, 2025, indicated that R1 was being evicted due to non-payment of rent. According to the notice, The rent was due on Jan. 1, but was not received as of the date of the notice. The notice did not contain a statement regarding unlawful detainers, as required by HSC Section 1569.683(a)(4). In an interview, Jack said that this second notice was given in error, as payment arrangements had already been made by the agency paying for R1's stay. However, Jack said, he was not aware of this at the time. According to Jack, the notice was later rescinded after he was made aware of the updated payment arrangements.
Neither of the notices served were legal, based on 22 CCR and HSC requirements. However, this does not preclude the licensee from serving new, lawful eviction notices to R1 in the future. If the licensee chooses to pursue eviction, they agree to send a draft notice with all relevant supporting documents to CCLD for review.
In an interview, R1 said that a staff member (S6) locked them out of the facility on one occasion, and they had be let in by another resident. R1 said the incident occurred at the door leading into the backyard from the kitchen. In an interview, another resident (R6) said they had witnessed the incident as described above. R6 said the staff member "just wouldn't open the door" for R1. R6 said it seemed like the staff member didn't like R1. R6 said the staff member stared at R1 and laughed. R6 has no cognitive deficits or memory impairments, according to their medical records. In an interview, S6 said that they had locked the back door around 7 p.m., the end of their shift, while R1 was outside. S6 said R1 knew what time they typically locked up. S6 said that R1 "couldn't have been locked out" because there were multiple alternative entrances to the facility, such as the front door or R1's exterior bedroom door. S6 said they did not hear R1 calling to be let in.
[continued on 9099-C] |