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

2,003 chars

8
days under section 1161. As for implied field preemption, plaintiffs argue
that state statutes regarding landlord-tenant notification show the
Legislature’s intent to fully occupy the field.
      To oppose these arguments, defendant relies on the framework set
forth by the California Supreme Court in Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley (1976)
17 Cal.3d 129 (Birkenfeld). In that case, landlords challenged an initiative
amendment to Berkeley’s city charter. (Id. at p. 135.) The court addressed
“two kinds of restraint upon eviction proceedings” imposed by the
amendment. (Id. at p. 147.) First, the amendment limited “the grounds upon
which a landlord may bring an action to repossess a rent-controlled unit” to
breaches of duty by tenants (e.g., nonpayment of rent, nuisance, use for
illegal purpose, and refusal of access), good faith withdrawal from the rental
market, or tenant refusal to execute renewal of lease. (Ibid.) Second, the
amendment required that a landlord “obtain a certificate of eviction from the
rent control board before seeking such repossession.” (Ibid.) The landlords
argued that both restraints were preempted by state law. (Id. at p. 148.)
      As for the limitations on the grounds for eviction, the landlords argued
that they conflicted with section 1161, subdivision (1), which provides that a
landlord may pursue an unlawful detainer action where a tenant continues in
possession after expiration of the rental term. (Birkenfeld, supra, 17 Cal.3d
at p. 148.) The California Supreme Court explained that these provisions are
“not necessarily in conflict” if the purpose of the state statute is “sufficiently
distinct” from that of the local legislation. (Id. at p. 149.) The court
determined that the purpose of unlawful detainer statutes, including
section 1161, is “procedural.” (Birkenfeld, at p. 149.) These statutes
“implement the landlord’s property rights by permitting him to recover
possession once the consensual basis for the tenant’s occupancy is at an end.”

Other Sections in This Document (40)

Full Text