Rental Housing Owners Ass'n v. City of Hayward, 200 Cal. App. 4th 81 (2011)

Citation: Rental Housing Owners Ass'n v. City of Hayward, 200 Cal. App. 4th 81 (2011)
Parent Document: Rental Housing Owners Ass'n v. City of Hayward, 200 Cal. App. 4th 81 (2011)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2011-09-30
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5810638/rental-housing-owners-assn-v-ci... ↗

Full Text

1,143 chars

RHOA challenged the language of the MIP on several grounds. First, RHOA asserted that the portion of the MIP (§ 9-5.302) that states “Owners and managers shall allow for the inspection of these units” is preempted by Civil Code section 1954 (section 1954). Section 1954 describes circumstances under which a landlord may enter a tenant’s unit, and as relevant here, it allows a landlord entry for inspection purposes only at the request of a tenant upon termination of the lease.4 Second, RHOA asserted that the “shall allow” language violates the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution because it requires landlords to permit entry into residential units absent tenants’ consent or a warrant. Third, RHOA asserted that the fee and penalty provisions in section 9-5.501 violate owners’ rights to substantive due process under the state and federal Constitutions because owners incur fees *87and penalties for their refusal to allow City inspections without tenant consent. RHOA requested that the court issue a writ of mandate enjoining the City’s enforcement of sections 9-5.302 (MIP) and 9-5.501 (Report on Fees/Penalty Charges).

Other Sections in This Document (55)

Full Text