Cal. Apartment Assn. v. City of Pasadena (2025)

Citation: Cal. Apartment Assn. v. City of Pasadena (2025)
Parent Document: Cal. Apartment Assn. v. City of Pasadena (2025)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2025-12-18
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10761039/cal-apartment-assn-v-city-of-pasadena/ ↗

Full Text

1,864 chars

62
            d.     The relocation assistance requirement does not
                   fall within the Costa-Hawkins Act’s savings
                   clause
       Respondents contend the Costa-Hawkins Act does not
preempt the relocation assistance requirement under section
1806(b)(C), because providing relocation assistance for tenants
who are unable to pay lawfully increased rent falls within the
Act’s savings clause. That reservation of authority in Civil Code
section 1954.52 states, “Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect the authority of a public entity that may otherwise exist
to regulate or monitor the basis for eviction.” (Civ. Code,
§ 1954.52, subd. (c).) The Costa-Hawkins Act thus expressly
carves out from its preemptive effect local regulation of the “basis
for eviction.” (Civ. Code, § 1954.52, subd. (c); see id., § 1954.53,
subd. (e) [near-identical savings clause in Costa-Hawkins Act’s
vacancy decontrol provisions preserving the authority of local
governments “to regulate or monitor the grounds for eviction,”
italics added]; see DeZerega v. Meggs, supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at
p. 40 [“The Act explicitly disclaims any effect on the power of
local governments to regulate evictions.”].) Contrary to
respondents’ contention, this provision does not save the
relocation assistance requirement from preemption.
       “Generally speaking, a savings clause preserves some
preexisting legal authority from the effect of some newly enacted
legal authority that contains the savings clause. ‘Saving clauses
are usually strictly construed.’ ” (City of Dana Point v. California
Coastal Com. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 170, 195; accord, Coyne,
supra, 9 Cal.App.5th at p. 1231 [“savings clauses . . . ‘are usually
strictly construed’ ”].) “ ‘[C]ourts have refused to interpret
savings clauses in a manner that would authorize activity that

Other Sections in This Document (114)

Full Text