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

1,081 chars

The Property Owners argue that the Ordinance, like the preempted ordinances in Tri County and Channing, "requir[es] landlords to wait longer to recover possession than allowed by state law," pointing to Civil Code section 1946.1, subdivision (b), which requires 60 days' notice of termination to tenants with month-to-month tenancies. But unlike the ordinances in Tri County and Channing and Civil Code section 1946.1, the Ordinance does not specify an amount of notice required to terminate a tenancy. Instead, as discussed above, it establishes a permissible substantive defense to eviction that (like some other substantive defenses to eviction) impacts when landlords may evict. Roble Vista instructs that where an ordinance regulates in an area within the municipality's police powers and does not *133conflict with a state statute, its incidental impact on the timing of landlord-tenant relations does not alone render it preempted under Tri County and Channing. Such is the case here. We conclude the Ordinance is not preempted under Tri County and Channing. *522DISPOSITION

Other Sections in This Document (32)

Full Text