3
tenant harassment, which permits the district attorney to bring
misdemeanor charges against the landlord and permits the tenant to assert
the conduct as an affirmative defense in an unlawful detainer action.
(§ 37.10B, subds. (c)(2), (c)(3).)
In February 2019, plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of mandate and
complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief seeking a declaration that the
amendments are unlawful and preempted by Costa Hawkins. The trial court
denied plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on the writ, holding that the
amendments are not preempted by Costa Hawkins, and shortly thereafter
entered judgment in the city’s favor. 4 Plaintiffs timely filed a notice of appeal.
Discussion
Plaintiffs contend section 37.10(A)(i) is preempted by Costa Hawkins
because it regulates the rent a landlord may charge on exempt property.
They acknowledge that the new provision does not directly limit the amount
of rent a landlord may charge, but argue that the city cannot do indirectly
what it is prohibited from doing directly. We disagree that the provision
regulates rent.
As the trial court noted, the amendments “do not prevent landlords
from earning rent as determined by the free market, and it imposes no caps
to ensure the availability of affordable rental housing.” Rather, the measures
prohibit a landlord from designating as rent an artificial sky-high amount
that the landlord does not intend to collect but intends to cause the tenant to
vacate the unit voluntarily or by eviction for nonpayment of the unrealistic
figure. Section 37.10(A)(i) requires a finding that the rent increase was
intended to coerce the tenant to leave the premises. Costa Hawkins does not