S.F. Apartment Ass'n v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 229 Cal. Rptr. 3d 124 (2018)

Citation: S.F. Apartment Ass'n v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 229 Cal. Rptr. 3d 124 (2018)
Parent Document: S.F. Apartment Ass'n v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 229 Cal. Rptr. 3d 124 (2018)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2018-02-14
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6239406/sf-apartment-assn-v-city-cnty-of-sf/ ↗

Full Text

1,320 chars

The court rejected an argument that these provisions were procedural for purposes of Birkenfeld 's preemption analysis: "The warning notice requirements [in the ordinance] limit a landlord's right to initiate an eviction due to certain tenant conduct by requiring that the specified conduct continue after the landlord provides the tenant written notice to cease. These notice requirements thus regulate the substantive grounds for eviction, rather than the procedural remedy available to the landlord once grounds for eviction have been established. If the tenant ceases the offending conduct once notified by the landlord, there is no good cause to evict. The requirements for a warning notice are therefore not preempted by the unlawful detainer statutes. As the court stated in Birkenfeld , a city, pursuant to its police power, may place substantive limitations on otherwise available grounds for eviction, but not procedural ones. [Citation.] Unlike the certificate of eviction that was invalidated in Birkenfeld , the warning notice requirements of [the ordinance] do not involve prefiling review by a local administrative agency or impose 'elaborate prerequisites' on the commencement of an unlawful detainer proceeding." ( Rental Housing, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at pp. 762-763, 90 Cal.Rptr.3d 181, fn. omitted.)

Other Sections in This Document (32)

Full Text