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

1,235 chars

26
interfered with that scheme by creating a longer notice timeline. (Tri County,
at p. 1298; Channing, supra, 11 Cal.App.4th at p. 97.) So too here.
      In sum, the trial court did not err in concluding that Ordinance No. 18-
22 conflicts with Code of Civil Procedure section 1161 through both direct
preemption and implied field preemption. We conclude, however, that this
preemption invalidates not just the provision regarding notice for
nonpayment of rent, but the entire ordinance.
                                DISPOSITION
      The judgment is reversed insofar as it concluded that Ordinance
No. 18-22 was not preempted by state law to the extent it changed the
required notice period for unlawful detainers/evictions based on the grounds
enumerated in San Francisco Administrative Code section 37.9,
subdivisions (a)(2) through (a)(6) of the Rent Ordinance. The judgment is
otherwise affirmed. The superior court shall issue a writ of mandate
commending defendant City and County of San Francisco to not enforce or
apply Ordinance No. 18-22. Plaintiffs San Francisco Apartment Association
and Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute are entitled to their
costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(3).)

Other Sections in This Document (40)

Full Text