Skip to main content
INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

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

Other Sections in This Document (32)

Full Text

1,567 chars
The Ordinance is significantly less procedural than the ordinance upheld in Rental Housing . Unlike that ordinance, the Ordinance does not impose any procedural requirements: it does not require landlords to provide written notice or to do any other affirmative act. Instead, it simply has a procedural impact , limiting the timing of certain evictions. Moreover, this procedural impact-like the procedural requirement in Rental Housing -is necessary to "regulate the substantive grounds" of the defense it creates. The purpose of the Ordinance is to protect children from the disruptive impact of moving during the school year or losing a relationship with a school employee who moves during the school year. When tenants belong to this protected group (or have a custodial or familial relationship with a resident protected group member), they have a substantive defense to eviction; when they no longer belong to the group-because the regular school year has ended or will have ended by the effective date of the notice of termination-they no longer have a substantive defense. At this time, landlords may avail themselves of the unlawful detainer procedures, which are not altered by the Ordinance. Thus, the Ordinance is a permissible "limitation upon the landlord's property rights under the police power," rather than an impermissible infringement on the landlord's unlawful detainer remedy. ( Birkenfeld, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 149, 130 Cal.Rptr. 465, 550 P.2d 1001.) We conclude the Ordinance is substantive for purposes of Birkenfeld 's preemption analysis.