S.F. Apartment Assn. v. City & County of S.F. (2024)

Citation: S.F. Apartment Assn. v. City & County of S.F. (2024)
Parent Document: S.F. Apartment Assn. v. City & County of S.F. (2024)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2024-09-11
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10114513/sf-apartment-assn-v-city-county-of-sf/ ↗

Full Text

2,398 chars

In 2022, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors (Board) passed an
ordinance that created a longer notice timeline for landlords pursuing at-
fault evictions. Plaintiffs San Francisco Apartment Association and Small
Property Owners of San Francisco Institute sought a writ of mandate
enjoining defendant City and County of San Francisco from enforcing the
ordinance as preempted by state law. The trial court granted the petition in
part, concluding that the ordinance was preempted only to the extent it
changed the notice timeline for one type of at-fault eviction: nonpayment of
                                      1
rent. Plaintiffs and defendant each appealed. We affirm in part and reverse
in part, concluding that the entire ordinance is preempted by state law.
                               BACKGROUND
   A. Unlawful Detainer Statutes
      Code of Civil Procedure sections 1159 to 1179a,1 collectively known as
the Unlawful Detainer Act, govern “the procedure for landlords and tenants
to resolve disputes about who has the right to possess real property.” (Stancil
v. Superior Court (2021) 11 Cal.5th 381, 394 (Stancil).) An action for
unlawful detainer is a summary proceeding. (Barela v. Superior Court (1981)
30 Cal.3d 244, 249.) “Given society’s interest in swiftly resolving the balance
between a tenant’s right to enjoy leased real property without disturbance
and a landlord’s right to ownership income, unlawful detainer actions
advance quickly—and the relevant statutes impose shorter procedural
timelines than the ones governing other civil actions.” (Stancil, at p. 390.)
“These proceedings are limited in scope and demand strict adherence to the
statutes’ procedural requirements.” (Ibid.)
      Section 1161 describes the circumstances under which a tenant is
guilty of unlawful detainer and may be evicted, including nonpayment of
rent, breach of a material term of the lease or agreement, nuisance, and use
of the premises for illegal purpose. (§ 1161, subds. (2)–(4); Stancil, supra,
11 Cal.5th at p. 395.) Before filing a complaint for unlawful detainer based
on nonpayment of rent, a landlord must provide the tenant with a three-day
notice to pay rent or quit. (§ 1161, subd. (2).) For unlawful detainer based on
breach of a material term of the lease or agreement, a landlord must provide
the tenant with a three-day notice requiring performance of those conditions

Other Sections in This Document (40)

Full Text