Assemblymember Bonta has introduced AB 2925, providing for “good cause” for evictions. Originally, this was stated to be a “just cause for eviction” measure. Currently, most “just causes” for eviction are implemented at the city level (with the exception of the Ellis Act). “Just cause” means that a tenant has a substantive defense to an eviction if the landlord did not serve the eviction notice/terminate the tenancy with an allowable “just cause” (like nonpayment of rent or the desire of the owner to move in).
The meaning of “good cause” is a bit more vague. The current text of the bill would add Section 1946.2 to the Civil Code, to read:
“A landlord shall not issue a notice to terminate a tenancy pursuant to Section 1946 or 1946.1 except upon good cause, as set forth with particularity in the notice. This section is in addition to, and does not supersede or preempt, any other state or local law requiring the showing of good cause prior to the termination of a tenancy.”
This would merely seem to reiterate a protection that tenants already have at the state level – a defense against retaliatory evictions. As the California Supreme Court put it: “The retaliatory eviction doctrine is founded on the premise that a landlord may normally evict a tenant for any reason or for no reason at all, but he may not evict for an improper reason”. (Barela v. Superior Court (1981) 30 Cal. 3d 244, 249.)
Justin Goodman was featured in the Legal Q&A for the March 2018 issue of SF Apartment Magazine – the official publication of the San Francisco Apartment Association.
Justin explored San Francisco’s Business and Tax Regulations Code, which sets forth requirements for business registration and the City’s gross receipts tax, and which considers owners of “one residential structure consisting of fewer than four units or one residential condominium” to be a “small business enterprise”. These small property owners do not need a registration certificate and are exempt from the gross receipts tax.
SFAA is dedicated to educating, advocating for, and supporting the rental housing community so that its members operate ethically, fairly, and profitably. SFAA’s is a trade association whose main focus is to support rental owners by offering a wide variety of benefits that address all aspects of rental housing industry.
SocketSite.com reports the ten-year trend of eviction notices filed with the San Francisco Rent Board. The trend for 2017 is a decrease across the board, with one exception – the Ellis Act.
SocketSite doesn’t express an opinion on the cause for the trend (at least until you get to the comment’s section). However, a recent decline in breach/nuisance evictions may be attributable to the 2015 Jane Kim Amendment (which heightened both the pleading standard and the substantive threshold for a landlord to prevail here). The recent decline in OMI/RMI evictions may be because of the uncertainty of the “educator” amendment or the more stringent enforcement of fraudulent owner move-in evictions. Ellis Act evictions may be up in recent years (compared to 2013) following a dip during the uncertainty created by the “Campos I” and “Campos II” enhanced relocation assistance payment legislation.
Thus, under Birkenfeld, municipalities may by ordinance limit the substantive grounds for eviction by specifying that a landlord may gain possession of a rental unit only on certain limited grounds. But they may not procedurally impair the summary eviction scheme set forth in the unlawful detainer statutes. The Property Owners argue the Ordinance is procedural because it governs the timing of notices of eviction: ‘The Ordinance does not limit the allowable justifications for evicting tenants; it only delays certain evictions.’ Such questions of timing, they contend, are purely procedural. The City argues the Ordinance is substantive because timing is merely a component of the substantive defense to eviction: ‘When the household to be evicted includes a child under the age of 18 or an ‘educator’ within the terms of the Ordinance, ‘good cause’ for a landlord to undertake any of the specified types of no-fault evictions does not exist unless the eviction is to take effect during the summer months.’ As this case illustrates, the distinction between procedure and substantive law can be shadowy and difficult to draw in practice.
In SFAA v. CCSF, Division Five of the First District Court of Appeal overturned the SF Housing Court’s order mandating that the City not enforce a 2016 amendment to the Rent Ordinance (Ordinance 55-16) that created a substantive defense to certain non-fault evictions for “educators”.
Continue reading SFAA v. CCSF (2018): City’s “Educator” Eviction Defense Upheld as “Substantive” Rather Than “Procedural”
“Sayta subsequently brought a motion to enforce the settlement pursuant to section 664.6, alleging breach of a confidentiality provision and seeking liquidated damages. The trial court denied the motion on the merits and Sayta appeals Because the parties failed to request, before dismissal, that the trial court retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement, or alternatively seek to set aside the dismissals, we find the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the motion. We therefore reverse on that basis and do not reach the merits.”
Sayta v. Chu represents the importance of understanding civil procedure in crafting effective and enforceable settlement agreements.
Very few cases actually go to trial. Through all the posturing, law and motion, discovery and settlement discussions, attorneys are generally able to anticipate likely outcomes to obtain “good enough” results, without their clients paying for an answer to the question “who was right?”. (Or, put another way, settlement allows the parties to determine the outcome, while trial gives control over the outcome to the judge and jury.)
A “settlement agreement” is essentially a contract and is generally interpreted and enforced like a contract. This could create a problem of regression: settling a claim (like one for “breach of contract”) results in a “settlement contract”. The settlement contract could also be breached and enforced with a lawsuit, which can be settled with a settlement contract, which can be breached, etc., etc. Lawsuits could never be settled because the claim would only be deferred to the next lawsuit.
Continue reading Sayta v. Chu (2017) – Parties Must Obtain Court Order To Retain Jurisdiction To Enforce After Dismissal
San Francisco Apartment Association and Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute appealed the 2015 district court ruling upholding San Francisco’s Buyout Ordinance. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld the ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, affirming its judgment on the pleadings, and upholding the ordinance on constitutional grounds.
In so ruling, the Court concluded that the Buyout Ordinance did not violate the various constitutional rights asserted (e.g., free speech rights, equal protection of the laws, liberty to contract, right to privacy) under any of the distinct provisions challenged: (1) the “Disclosure Provision”, (2) the “Notification Provision”, (3) the “Rescission Provision”, (4) the “Database Provision”, (5) the “Penalty and Fee Provision”, and (6) the “Condominium Conversion Provision”.
Continue reading SFAA v. CCSF (2018) – 9th Circuit Affirms N.D. Cal. Judgment on the Pleadings for San Francisco in Buyout Challenge
In 2009, the Second District issued the opinion Palmer/Sixth Street Properties, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1396, which vindicated a Los Angeles developer’s challenge to the city’s development plan requiring “vacancy control” for new rental units built in a development project that would remove 60 units of low income housing. The developer contended that the ordinance was preempted by Costa-Hawkins and, that even though Costa-Hawkins did create a carve out where a city provides density bonuses, the developer was not even building to authorized density. The Palmer court noted that, “the issue is whether requiring Palmer’s involuntary compliance with section 11.C’s affordable housing requirements is hostile or inimical to Palmer’s right under the Costa–Hawkins Act to establish the initial rental rates for the project’s dwelling units. We conclude that it is”.
Effective January 1, 2018, AB 1505, referred to as the “Palmer fix”, now authorizes cities to adopt ordinances that require, as a condition of development, that the development include a certain percentage of below-market rate rental units (or alternatives for in-lieu fees or off-site units).
San Francisco has had density bonus “accessory dwelling unit” ordinances, that provide property owners to exceed density limits in adding additional units, on the condition that they record agreements to subject the units to the Rent Ordinance. In response to AB 1505, the Board of Supervisors is also working on implementing the Palmer fix at the local level, with several changes to the Planning Code to amend the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.