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

1,911 chars

22
challenged Berkeley’s rent control ordinance on a variety of grounds,
including that its rent withholding provisions—allowing a tenant to withhold
rent if a landlord violated rent ceilings or failed to register the rental unit—
were preempted by section 1161, subdivision (1). (Fisher, supra, 37 Cal.3d at
p. 705.) The California Supreme Court concluded that these withholding
provisions presented a permissible substantive defense to eviction and thus
did not conflict with section 1161. (Fisher, at p. 707.) Again, unlike the
additional 10 days required by Ordinance No. 18-22, landlords could
presumably “meet” this defense in Berkeley’s ordinance by showing there
were no grounds for withholding rent. (Birkenfeld, supra, 17 Cal.3d at
p. 151.)
      In Foster, a landlord challenged a San Francisco regulation prohibiting
tenant evictions for violation of an obligation not included in the original
rental agreement, unless the change was authorized by the Rent Ordinance,
other law, or accepted by the tenant. (Foster, supra, 242 Cal.App.4th at
p. 925.) The appellate court rejected the landlord’s preemption argument
because the regulation affected “substantive grounds on which a landlord
may evict a tenant” and did not “interfere with the procedural protections
offered by state law.” (Id. at p. 932.) Again, unlike the regulation in Foster,
Ordinance No. 18-22 interferes with the notice procedure set forth in Code of
Civil Procedure section 1161 and is antithetical to the “relatively simple and
speedy remedy” the state unlawful detainer statutes provide. (Birkenfeld,
supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 151.)
      We also agree with plaintiffs that Ordinance No. 18-22 is impliedly
preempted as state statutory law has fully occupied the field of landlord-
tenant notification timelines. As a preliminary matter, we acknowledge the
general guidance that “ ‘courts are cautious in applying the doctrine of

Other Sections in This Document (40)

Full Text