Section 9-5

Citation: Section 9-5
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

1,177 chars

RHOA also argues that section 9-5.306 of the amended ordinance conflicts with Civil Code section 1954 because it requires landlord presence at inspections. This requirement does not render the amended ordinance facially invalid under section 1954. While it is conceivable a tenant might consent to an inspection by City officials yet deny the landlord permission to enter at the inspection, the amended ordinance does not address such a scenario. On a facial challenge, we must presume the validity of the ordinance. (See Tobe v. City of Santa Ana, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 1102 [stating that “[a]ll presumptions favor the validity of a statute” and a court “may not declare it invalid unless it is clearly so”].) Thus, if such a scenario arose, we presume City officials would not, on the basis of the tenant’s consent to inspection by City officials, insist that they be accompanied by the landlord if the'tenant objects to the landlord’s presence. (See Arcadia Unified School Dist. v. State Dept. of Education (1992) 2 Cal.4th 251, 266 [5 Cal.Rptr.2d 545, 825 P.2d 438] [“We have no reason to believe, in this facial challenge, that the statute will be applied improperly.”].)

Other Sections in This Document (55)

Full Text