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

Apartment Assn. of Los Angeles etc. v. City of Los Angeles (2026)

Citation
Apartment Assn. of Los Angeles etc. v. City of Los Angeles (2026)
Parent Document
Apartment Assn. of Los Angeles etc. v. City of Los Angeles (2026)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
2026-05-14

Other Sections in This Document (77)

Full Text

1,614 chars
12
subds. (2)-(4); see Stancil, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 395; Pasadena,
supra, 117 Cal.App.5th at p. 242.) “[T]hese include staying in
possession after the term of the lease, remaining in possession
after default in payment of rent and three days’ notice, and
remaining in possession after failing to perform other conditions
or covenants of the lease.” (Foster v. Britton (2015)
242 Cal.App.4th 920, 931, fn. 7.)
       Local governments may further regulate these substantive
grounds for eviction, including by creating substantive defenses
to eviction, pursuant to their police power. (See Birkenfeld,
supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 149; Fisher v. City of Berkeley (1984)
37 Cal.3d 644, 705-707 (Fisher) [local ordinance’s elimination of
“one ground for eviction” did not “directly conflict[] with” Code of
Civil Procedure section 1161]; Rental Housing, supra,
171 Cal.App.4th at p. 754 [“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”]; id. at p. 764 [a municipal “ordinance may permissibly
eliminate a ground for eviction specified in Code of Civil
Procedure section 1161 without creating a conflict with the
unlawful detainer statutes”].) For evictions based on the
nonpayment of rent, state law requires that a landlord must
serve the tenant with a three-day notice to pay rent or quit the
premises before proceeding with an unlawful detainer action.
(Code Civ. Proc. § 1161, subd. (2); see Pasadena, supra,
117 Cal.App.5th at p. 241; Eshagian v. Cepeda (2025)
112 Cal.App.5th 433, 457.)