Skip to main content
INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

Apartment Assn. of Los Angeles etc. v. City of Los Angeles (2026)

Citation
Apartment Assn. of Los Angeles etc. v. City of Los Angeles (2026)
Parent Document
Apartment Assn. of Los Angeles etc. v. City of Los Angeles (2026)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
2026-05-14

Other Sections in This Document (77)

Full Text

1,828 chars
33
which it was leased, or deprive the tenant of the beneficial
enjoyment of the premises.’ [Citations.]” (Pasadena, supra,
117 Cal.App.5th at p. 238.) “When a constructive eviction occurs,
‘the tenant is relieved of the obligation to pay rent and may sue
for damages.’ [Citations.]” “A landlord’s lawful, good faith rent
increase under the Costa-Hawkins Act plainly does not entitle
the tenant to stop paying rent and sue the landlord for damages.
Imposing such a lawful rent increase, even on a tenant who is
unable to pay the increased amount, is not a constructive
eviction.” (Ibid.)
       San Francisco Apartment Assn. v. City and County of San
Francisco (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 288, 294 (SFAA 2022) and Mak
v. City of Berkeley Rent Stabilization Bd. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th
60, 69-70 (Mak), which held local measures were not preempted
by the Costa-Hawkins Act’s vacancy decontrol scheme because
they were permissible regulations of grounds for eviction within
the meaning of Civil Code section 1954.53, subdivision (e), are
distinguishable. In both cases, the ordinances at issue targeted
“bad faith, pretextual” conduct by landlords to circumvent local
eviction regulations. (SFAA 2022, at p. 295; see Mak, at
pp. 63, 69 [regulation imposed a sanction for landlord’s
“subterfuge” and “transparent attempt to circumvent the
provisions of local rent control provisions”].)
       The ordinance at issue in SFAA 2022 made it unlawful for
a landlord to seek to recover possession of a rental unit that was
exempt from rent control “by means of a rental increase that is
imposed in bad faith to coerce the tenant to vacate the unit in
circumvention of the city’s eviction laws.” (SFAA 2022, supra,
74 Cal.App.5th at pp. 290-291.) The appellate court concluded
the regulation’s targeting of bad faith, pretextual rent increases