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

1,789 chars

17
independent of any substantive defenses to eviction. Instead, the Ordinance
is a substantive defense with an impact on timing.” (Ibid.)
      Here, unlike Educators, Ordinance No. 18-22 does not establish a
substantive defense to eviction for a protected group. Nor does it provide a
substantive defense with only an “impact” on timing but no procedural
requirement. (Educators, supra, 20 Cal.App.5th at p. 518.) Instead, its
extension of the timeline for notice and opportunity to cure is entirely
procedural. It also imposes a specific procedural requirement: landlords
must affirmatively act by providing a written warning after good cause for
eviction has been demonstrated but before notice of eviction can be given
under section 1161. As explained above, this process creates a procedural
barrier precluding relief. Moreover, while the dictum from Educators is of
course not binding (Gauss v. GAF Corp. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1120),
it also supports our procedural conclusion because Ordinance No. 18-22
creates a blanket timing barrier across all six grounds for eviction where the
tenant is at fault. It does not regulate or distinguish between any one
substantive ground.
      In Rental Housing, landlords challenged an Oakland initiative adopted
in its November 2002 general election. (Rental Housing, supra,
171 Cal.App.4th at p. 749.) Prior to this initiative, Oakland’s rent control
ordinance did not have any “good cause” requirements for eviction. (Id. at
p. 750.) The addition of these requirements was “ ‘crucial to the main
purpose of the Ordinance: to prevent landlords from evicting in order to
undermine rent control.’ ” (Id. at p. 759.) Indeed, “good cause” requirements
for eviction were already in “many other cities’ rent control laws.” (Id. at
p. 750.)

Other Sections in This Document (40)

Full Text