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

1,870 chars

12
is at an end, for there is no need for judicial construction.” (Id. at p. 1083.)
When the plain meaning of the text does not resolve the question, we proceed
to the second step and turn to maxims of construction and extrinsic aids,
including legislative history materials. (Ibid.) If ambiguity remains, we
“must cautiously take the third and final step” and “apply ‘reason,
practicality, and common sense to the language at hand.’ ” (Id. at p. 1084.)
      A. Language of Ordinance
      We read the express language of Ordinance No. 18-22 to contain at
least some ambiguity. As detailed above, the text in the “Purpose and
Findings” section indicates that the ordinance is aimed at the timing of
eviction and thus may be procedural in nature. It states there is some
“confusion” regarding how long tenant misconduct must continue before a
landlord can initiate unlawful detainer proceedings to recover possession of a
rental unit. It also appears to suggest that tenants should be given a
“reasonable” amount of time where they have made an “innocent mistake” or
are “able to correct the issue.”
      The text of the ordinance adding San Francisco Administrative Code
section 37.9, subdivision (o), however, is framed differently. It states that the
six grounds for at-fault evictions “shall not apply” unless tenants have been
provided the additional warning and 10-day cure period. As defendant
suggests, this language may be interpreted as regulating the substantive
grounds for eviction.
      We find Birkenfeld’s reasoning instructive in resolving this ambiguity.
In Birkenfeld, the court analogized the Berkeley amendment’s limitations on
the grounds for eviction to the “substantive” defense in unlawful detainer
proceedings of the breach of the implied warranty of habitability.
(Birkenfeld, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 151.) Presumably, landlords could defeat

Other Sections in This Document (40)

Full Text