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

1,550 chars

15
that “accepts three days” as sufficient notice to pay rent or perform and raise
concern that three days “really flies by” and tenants “don’t have enough time”
under the law. They explain that the additional 10 days provided for in
Ordinance No. 18-22 would be a “game changer” for tenants. For these
reasons, they explain that Ordinance No. 18-22 extends the section 1161
timeline to create a “warning period” to “keep people in their homes and
resolve a pending dispute without litigation.”
      In contrast with this procedural effect and purpose, defendant relies
primarily on Educators and Rental Housing to argue that Ordinance No. 18-
22 instead regulates the substantive grounds for eviction. While both cases
“merit close examination,” they do not change our conclusion.
      C. Educators and Rental Housing
      In Educators, the same plaintiffs as in this action challenged an earlier
San Francisco ordinance that created a defense to certain no-fault grounds
for eviction3 “if a child under the age of 18 or any educator resides in the unit,
the child or educator is a tenant in the unit or has a custodial or family
relationship with a tenant in the unit, the tenant has resided in the unit for
12 months or more, and the effective date of the notice of termination of
tenancy falls during the school year.” (Educators, supra, 20 Cal.App.5th at
p. 513.) Plaintiffs raised the same preemption argument they make here:
the ordinance was preempted by state law governing landlord-tenant
notification procedures and timetables. (Ibid.)

Other Sections in This Document (40)

Full Text