S.F. Apartment Assn. v. City & County of S.F. (2024)

Citation: S.F. Apartment Assn. v. City & County of S.F. (2024)
Parent Document: S.F. Apartment Assn. v. City & County of S.F. (2024)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2024-09-11
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10114513/sf-apartment-assn-v-city-county-of-sf/ ↗

Full Text

1,843 chars

4
nevertheless evict the tenant and put them at risk of permanent
displacement from the City is not appropriate.”
      Ordinance No. 18-22 amended San Francisco Administrative Code
section 37.9 of the Rent Ordinance in two respects. First, it amended section
37.9, subdivision (c) to provide that for notices to vacate under the first six
“just cause” requirements for evictions where a tenant is at fault, a landlord
“shall prior to serving the notice to vacate provide the tenant a written
warning and an opportunity to cure as set forth in Section 37.9(o).” Second, it
added section 37.9, subdivision (o) to provide that these six grounds for
eviction “shall not apply unless the violation is not cured within ten days
after the landlord has provided the tenant a written warning that describes
the alleged violation and informs the tenant that a failure to correct such
violation within ten days may result in the initiation of eviction proceedings.”
Ordinance No. 18-22 became effective on March 14, 2022.
   D. Petition for Writ of Mandate
      On March 21, 2022, plaintiffs sought a writ of mandate enjoining
defendant from enforcing Ordinance No. 18-22. Plaintiffs argued that
Ordinance No. 18-22 conflicted with, and thus was preempted by, state law.
Pursuant to section Code of Civil Procedure section 1161, landlords were
entitled to serve a three-day notice to pay/perform or quit and then invoke
their unlawful detainer remedy. Plaintiffs argued that Ordinance No. 18-22
created an impermissible conflict because it gave tenants an additional 10-
day notice and cure period.
   E. Judgment
      The trial court granted the petition in part. It found that “to the extent
it creates a longer period to cure or quit for non-payment of rent, Ordinance
No. 18-22 is in direct conflict with Code of Civil Procedure section 1161, and

Other Sections in This Document (40)

Full Text