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

1,989 chars

9
(Ibid.) The amendment, in contrast, eliminated particular grounds for
eviction, “giving rise to a substantive ground of defense in unlawful detainer
proceedings.” (Ibid., italics added.) The court reasoned that the city’s
exercise of its police power to create such a defense “does not bring it into
conflict with the state’s statutory scheme.” (Ibid.) For example, tenants may
raise other substantive defenses (like a landlord’s breach of the warranty of
habitability) in an unlawful detainer action for nonpayment of rent. (Ibid.)
Accordingly, the court concluded that remedies under the unlawful detainer
statutory scheme “do not preclude a defense based on municipal rent control
legislation enacted pursuant to the police power imposing rent ceilings and
limiting the grounds for eviction for the purpose of enforcing those rent
ceilings.” (Ibid.)
      As for the certificate of eviction, however, the process to obtain such a
certificate from the rent control board before unlawful detainer proceedings
could commence required a different conclusion. (Birkenfeld, supra, 17
Cal.3d at p. 150.) Before issuing that certificate, the board must provide
notice to the tenant, who then has five days to request a hearing. (Ibid.) If
the tenant requests such a hearing, it must be scheduled within seven days,
and the board must make a decision five days after the hearing. (Ibid.) A
tenant (or landlord) may also seek judicial review of the decision. (Ibid.)
      Birkenfeld determined that this certificate requirement was preempted
by the unlawful detainer statutes that provide “a summary procedure for
exercising their rights of repossession against tenants.” (Birkenfeld, supra,
17 Cal.3d at p. 151.) The court explained: “Unlike the limitations imposed
by the charter amendment upon chargeable rents and upon the grounds for
eviction, which can affect summary repossession proceedings only by making
substantive defenses available to the tenant, the requirement of a certificate

Other Sections in This Document (40)

Full Text