complaint·February 27, 2026

OS1 explained that the Facility’s landlord (OS2) called them for advice because the licensee had stopped paying facility rent. OS1 explained that OS2 issued an eviction and the report was filed out of concern for the welfare of the residents. On January 21, 2026 the Department contacted OS2 who corroborated that they were the legal owner of the grounds and that they were in legal mediation with the licensee. According to OS2, the licensee leased the property “as-is,” had not complied with the mediation agreement, and rent was owed for December 2023 through April 2024. OS2 admitted that the eviction was issued but not held up in court. The lease was set to expire in August of 2026 and would not be renewed if the licensee did not pay. A file review revealed that the Licensee became the owner of the business (facility) on June 17, 2025 after purchasing the facility from OS2, who became the property landlord due to retaining legal ownership of the building and grounds. The Licensee had a signed lease agreement on file with OS2. On January 21, 2026, a facility visit was conducted to initiate the investigation. During the visit, records were secured, and interviews were conducted which corroborated that an eviction notice was served, however there was conflicting information regarding the allegation. Immediate deficiencies were revealed and cited see Case Management- deficiencies visit dated 1/21/26] and the licensee was called to the San Diego Regional Office (SDRO) to meet with the Regional Manager to clarify the Licensee’s legal right to occupy the premises (control of property). On the same day, the licensee appeared to the office along with their attorney (OS4). During the meeting (see Case-management –office visit dated 1/21/26), legal documentation was provided which demonstrated an ongoing legal dispute between the Licensee and the former owner and current landlord (OS2). The licensee confirmed that they stopped paying rent due to OS2’s failure to meet the terms of their legal agreements, and OS4 corroborated several existing issues regarding city code compliance that were not identified until after the facility’s change of ownership. Court documents were also provided to show that both parties had been participating in mediation and that the eviction notice had been dismissed. The Licensee further explained that due to the ongoing legal conflict, they decided to move the facility to a new location for which an application was pending with the Department while the legal dispute continued. On January 27, 2026, the SDRO submitted a formal request to expedite the licensee’s application. Due to the dismissal of the eviction, ongoing mediation, and the pending legal dispute, there was not a preponderance of evidence to prove the allegation. The complaint is unsubstantiated and no deficiencies were cited. An exit interview was conducted with Caregiver Tatesaka, A copy of this report (LIC 9099) and the Licensee Rights (LIC 9058) will be provided at the conclusion of the visit. Signature below confirms receipt of these documents.