S.F. Apartment Ass'n v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 229 Cal. Rptr. 3d 124 (2018)

Citation: S.F. Apartment Ass'n v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 229 Cal. Rptr. 3d 124 (2018)
Parent Document: S.F. Apartment Ass'n v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 229 Cal. Rptr. 3d 124 (2018)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2018-02-14
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6239406/sf-apartment-assn-v-city-cnty-of-sf/ ↗

Full Text

1,171 chars

Thus, under Birkenfeld, "municipalities may by ordinance limit the substantive grounds for eviction by specifying that a landlord may gain possession of a rental unit only on certain limited grounds. [Citations.] But they may not procedurally impair the summary eviction scheme set forth in the unlawful detainer statutes ...." ( Rental Housing Assn. of Northern Alameda County v. City of Oakland (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 741, 754, 90 Cal.Rptr.3d 181 ( Rental Housing ).) The Property Owners argue the Ordinance is procedural because it governs the timing of notices of eviction: "The Ordinance does not limit the allowable justifications for evicting tenants; it only delays certain evictions." Such questions of timing, they contend, are purely procedural. The City argues the Ordinance is substantive because timing is merely a component of the substantive defense to eviction: "When the household to be evicted includes a child under the age of 18 or an 'educator' within the terms of the Ordinance, 'good cause' for a landlord to undertake any of the specified types of no-fault evictions does not exist unless the eviction is to take effect during the summer months."

Other Sections in This Document (32)

Full Text