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

1,907 chars

25
market. (Channing, supra, 11 Cal.App.4th at p. 91.) The landlord argued
that this provision was preempted because it conflicted with the 60-day
notice requirement under state law. (Id. at p. 94.) We agreed, citing Tri
County’s determination regarding implied field preemption of landlord-tenant
notification timetables, and reasoning that Berkeley had “made no showing
that its six-month notice requirement was aimed at preventing abuse of the
right to evict tenants; on the contrary, the findings discussed above
demonstrate that the City simply wishes to afford tenants more time to locate
replacement housing before their units are withdrawn from the market.
Worthy as this goal may be, it conflicts with the notice provisions of the
[Ellis] Act, which were calculated to achieve the same purpose, and cannot be
sustained.” (Channing, at p. 97.) As in Channing, the language and history
of Ordinance No. 18-22 show it was aimed to give tenants more time before
unlawful detainer proceedings could be initiated. It achieved the same
procedural purpose regarding this notification timeline but conflicts with
section 1161 by adding to that timeline.
      Defendant attempts to distinguish Tri County and Channing by
arguing that they deal with other types of landlord-tenant notification, not
notice for “ ‘a material breach of tenancy.’ ” But Tri County was explicit
about the scope of its analysis: it explained that the “time of notification, not
the amount of the [rental] increase, is the subject of the Ordinance” and the
question presented was “whether the Legislature has preempted the field of
notification in landlord-tenant relationships.” (Tri County, supra, 196
Cal.App.3d at p. 1293.) Tri County analyzed the state statutory scheme and
concluded that its patterned approach showed such intent. (Id. at p. 1298.)
Tri County and Channing determined that the local legislation impermissibly

Other Sections in This Document (40)

Full Text