-16-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Faciszewski, et al. v. Brown, et al., 92978-5
addresses only the effect of not filing a certification, providing that "[t]he failure of
the [landlord] to complete and file such a certification after a complaint by the tenant
shall be a defense for the tenant in an eviction action based on this ground." In the
context of the JCEO as a whole, it seems unreasonable to infer that the certification
is otherwise dispositive of the determination of just cause.
First, in contrast to other provisions of the ordinance, SMC 22.206.160(C)(4)
does not delineate any adjudicatory authority of the director to make this
determination. See, e.g., SMC 22.206.235(A) (authorizing the director to "issue an
order ... containing the decision within fifteen (15) days of the date that the review
[of a notice of violation] is completed"); see also SMC 22.206.280(F) ("The Director
shall request in writing that the City Attorney take enforcement action."). This
suggests that the director plays no role in determining the legitimacy of the
landlord's certification, certainly not for purposes of an unlawful detainer action.
Second, although the JCEO provides tenants with posteviction remedies if the
landlord does not follow through on the stated grounds for eviction, nothing in the
JCEO suggests that the city council intended the landlord's certification to prevent
the tenant from taking advantage of preeviction remedies. The City describes its
ordinance as follows: The JCEO "provides that an owner's failure to make a
requested certification is a defense to eviction .... [It] goes no further. It does not