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

1,937 chars

19
been clarified by amendments to eviction regulations adopted by Oakland’s
Rent Board specifying that “a warning notice ‘must give the tenant at least 7
days after service to cure the violation.’ ” (Id. at pp. 763–764.)
      We disagree with the trial court to the extent it felt Rental Housing
precluded it from finding Ordinance No. 18-22 preempted in its entirety. The
appellate court’s findings as to the Oakland initiative in Rental Housing are
based on important distinctions from the instant case. First, as a
preliminary matter, the appellate court in Rental Housing was clear that it
considered “only the text of the measure” and was presented with arguments
for the first time on appeal. (Rental Housing, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at
p. 752.) As described above, we find not only the text but also the legislative
history of Ordinance No. 18-22 instructive in analyzing the parties’
preemption arguments raised here and in the trial court.
      Second, the Oakland initiative set forth a substantive scheme by which
“a landlord must be ‘able to prove’ one of 11 specified grounds for eviction.”
(Rental Housing, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at p. 755.) The Oakland initiative
explicitly required one of the enumerated grounds to be the landlord’s
“ ‘dominant motive for recovering possession and the landlord acts in good
faith in seeking to recover possession.’ ” (Id. at p. 759.) It further explained
the need for “good faith, honest intent, and no ulterior motive.” (Ibid.) But
importantly, only some of the grounds where a tenant is at fault contained
notice requirements. (Id. at p. 762 [citing sections 6A(2), 6A(4), 6A(5), and
6A(7) of Oakland initiative].) Nonpayment of rent, for example, had no such
requirement.
      It was in this context of the Oakland initiative’s first-time
implementation of substantive “good cause” requirements that Rental
Housing considered a preemption challenge to the particular “good cause”

Other Sections in This Document (40)

Full Text