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

Citation: S.F. Apartment Assn. v. City & County of S.F. (2022)
Parent Document: S.F. Apartment Assn. v. City & County of S.F. (2022)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2022-01-24
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6244971/sf-apartment-assn-v-city-county-of-sf/ ↗

Full Text

1,314 chars

5
      Plaintiffs’ argument that the amendment makes it unlawful to increase
a tenant’s rent to amounts “substantially in excess of market rates for
comparable units” or in any amount within “six months after an attempt to
recover possession of the unit” was correctly rejected by the trial court. As the
trial court explained, plaintiffs confuse “potential evidence of the unlawful
conduct with the unlawful conduct itself. The ordinance does not prohibit
above-market rent increases or rent increases that closely follow attempts to
recover possession. Such increases lead to liability only when and because the
landlord has imposed them in an effort to avoid eviction laws while forcing
the tenant to vacate.”
      Plaintiffs argue that the provisions impermissibly require landlords “to
guess whether, in exercising their statutory right to increase rents, they are
subjecting themselves to criminal and severe civil penalties based on the
whims of a future fact-finder,” and “make[] every rent increase a potential
debate over whether it substantially exceeds market rates for comparable
units.” But we do not share the assumption that a landlord — much less the
rent board or a court — is incapable of distinguishing between a reasonable
and a bad faith rental increase. Good faith is hardly an unusual or

Other Sections in This Document (24)

Full Text