Riggers Loft faces new eviction case amid dispute over back rent
Attorneys for the City of Richmond's Surplus Property Authority (SPA) have filed a new unlawful detainer (UD) case against waterfront winery and event space Riggers Loft Wine Company, citing the business's most recent failure to pay rent.
The new case, now before the Contra Costa County Superior Court, seeks to evict the wine company and is part of a years-long dispute between the city and the tenant, Rigger's Loft, which has occupied the waterfront space at 1325 Canal Boulevard since 2015.
The first UD case went to trial in November 2024 and is still awaiting a final ruling. The city then filed a second UD case on December 23. Riggers Loft’s attorney, Daniel Butt, says the city now has two competing court cases that are both open.
"The first one says Riggers Loft had no lease, and they've got no right to be there. I want the court to order them out," Butt said. "The new one says they had this lease the whole time, and they owe us a bunch of rent."
In a closing argument filed on December 6, 2024, the SPA accused Riggers Loft of failing to comply with the terms of its lease, including non-payment of rent, unauthorized subleasing, and making alterations to the property without consent. The SPA is asking the court to award possession of the premises back to the city.
The SPA alleges that the wine company has failed to pay rent since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. In April 2020, the SPA granted Rigger's Loft an agreement, allowing the Rigger's Loft to defer rent payments until government-mandated business closures were lifted. However, RLWC did not resume payments after restrictions were lifted in June 2021, nor did it repay the deferred rent within the agreed six-month period.
According to the legal documents, by June 2022, Rigger's Loft owed $306,483.36 in back rent. Despite a demand for payment and subsequent negotiations, the wine company failed to pay the outstanding amount. In August 2023, the SPA served a notice of default, citing four non-monetary lease violations. RLWC did not cure the defaults, prompting the SPA to file an unlawful detainer action.
The SPA's notice of default outlined several non-monetary violations.
Failure to Comply with BCDC Permit: Rigger's Loft was required to provide public access to the premises as part of a permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. The SPA claims Rigger's Loft has not provided the required access or installed necessary improvements, such as a public deck and seating area.
Butt said that the permit for the Riggers Loft project requires public access to the wharf for 12 hours a day, six or seven days a week. However, Riggers Loft only operated seven hours a day, five days a week, falling short of the requirement. Butt said a nearby gate could have been opened to allow public access, as originally planned when the lease was negotiated.
Butt said when the lease was negotiated with former Port of Richmond Director Jim Matzorkis, the city had initially intended to collaborate with Riggers Loft to ensure access and wharf improvements.
"Once the city turned sour on Riggers Loft, they basically said we're not going to cooperate. We're not going to use any city property at all for access to the wharf, and now you're in violation," Butt said.
Riggers Loft reportedly installed a vinyl sign on the historic building without obtaining written consent from the SPA or the necessary permits from the city. The sign was removed in April 2024 as part of a painting project, but Riggers Loft never obtained proper approval.
Alison S. Flowers, Attorney for the Surplus Property Authority, said Rigger Loft was also required to obtain written landlord consent before installing signs on the exterior of the building.
"The premises are a World War II historical building, and it was renovated to historical standards in 2014," Flowers wrote in court documents. "The historical standards include the placement or installation of signs, and any new sign would need to be approved by the planning dept and the landlord."
Flowers said Riggers Loft subleased to at least four companies without SPA consent, allegedly violating lease terms by hosting full-time businesses rather than permitted "Alternating Proprietors." Additionally, Riggers Loft installed radiant heaters, puncturing the roof without SPA’s written approval, which voided the roof warranty.
The SPA also contends that Rigger's Loft failure to cure the monetary and non-monetary defaults warrants the lease's termination and the return of the premises to the city.
Butt said the best outcome is the city sees the value of having Riggers Loft and comes to some kind of agreement that makes sense.
"At the end of the day, the city has the resources, and they're going to have the right to evict the Riggers Loft at some point. But I don't think the question is being asked of whether that's in the interest of the city to do that," Butt said.
Thanks to our subscribers, who help make this coverage possible.
If you are not a subscriber, please consider supporting local journalism with a Grandview Independent subscription. Click to see our monthly and annual subscription plans.
Copyright © 2025 Grandview Independent, all rights reserved.. Although a trial for the original UD case, filed in April 2024, was completed, a judgment remains pending
