Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Frazier v. Super. Ct. (2022)

Citation
Frazier v. Super. Ct. (2022)
Parent Document
Frazier v. Super. Ct. (2022)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
2022-12-16

Full Text

2,066 chars
5
(Civ. Code, § 1954.53, subd. (e); Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley (1976) 17 Cal.3d 129, 149
(Birkenfeld).) Compliance with a local rent control ordinance may be considered an element of
a landlord’s prima facie case essential to prevail in an unlawful detainer, or an affirmative
defense to such an action, depending on its language. (Rental Housing Assn. of Northern
Alameda County v. City of Oakland (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 741, 756 (Rental Housing Assn).)
       The Ordinance was approved by the Board of Supervisors (the “Board”) in response to
a critical shortage of rental housing in the unincorporated areas of the County of Los Angeles.
(§ 8.52.020, subd. (A).) The Ordinance regulates excessive rents and provides rules for the
termination of a tenancy. (§ 8.52.020, subds. (B), (D).) It sets out strict rules governing
any increase in rent which is overseen and, in some cases, enforced by the Department. (§§
8.52.050-8.52.080, 8.52.145.) Remedies for a violation of the Ordinance include: (1) civil
liability for penalties, injunctive, declaratory and other equitable relief, restitution, costs and
attorney fees; (2) civil penalties up to $1,000 for each violation; and (3) criminal liability
punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for no more than six months or by a fine of not
more than $1,000, or by both. (§§ 8.52.160, 8.52.170.) These remedies are not exclusive
and do not preclude a tenant from seeking other remedies or penalties as provided by law.
(§ 8.52.170, subd. (E).)
       Defendants primarily rely on Rental Housing Assn., supra, 171 Cal.App.4th 741, in
support of their argument that the notice requirement in the Ordinance imposed a substantive
prerequisite to plaintiff’s cause of action. That case concerned a local rent control ordinance
requiring landlords to allege and prove a unit was exempt from the ordinance as part of its
case-in-chief. (Id. at pp. 754-755.) The ordinance also mandated that those same allegations
appear in the notice to quit and specified that “‘[f]ailure to make such allegations in the notice