S.F. Apartment Assn. v. City & County of S.F. (2022)

4
protect a landlord’s right to use a pretextual rent increase to avoid lawfully
imposed local eviction regulations. (See Action Apartment Assn., Inc. v. City
of Santa Monica (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1232, 1245 [Costa Hawkins authorizes
local governments “ ‘to monitor and regulate the grounds for eviction, in order
to prevent pretextual evictions.’ ”].)
      Plaintiffs assert that the plain language of Civil Code section 1954.52,
subdivision (a) protects a landlord’s right to impose “whatever rent they
choose” on an exempt unit. (See Cobb v. San Francisco Residential Rent
Stabilization & Arbitration Board (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 345, 351 [Costa
Hawkins “permits landlords to impose whatever rent they choose at the
commencement of a tenancy.” (Italics added.)].) As the trial court observed,
under petitioner’s interpretation of Costa Hawkins, “landlords have the right
to impose rent increases even if their only purpose is to force the tenant to
vacate without having to comply with eviction regulations. . . . [T]his outcome
would deprive local eviction regulations of their force” and construe “the
statute in a way that vitiates the authority of public entities to regulate and
monitor the basis for evictions. When [Civil Code section 1954.52,]
subdivision (a) is read together with subdivision (c), it is not reasonable to
conclude that the Legislature intended to authorize a pretextual rent
increase imposed, not for the purpose of collecting additional rent, but to
remove tenants in circumvention of applicable local eviction regulations.” 5