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
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10859038/apartment-assn-of-los-angeles-... ↗

Full Text

1,833 chars

13
      2.     The Unlawful Detainer Act Does Not Preempt the
             Eviction Threshold Ordinance
       Here, the Eviction Threshold Ordinance has the effect of
restricting a landlord’s ability to bring an unlawful detainer
action until the tenant owes more than one month of fair market
rent. AAGLA concedes that “the ordinance may be nominally
framed as a substantive limit on evictions,” but argues that “it
was clearly intended to have a procedural effect” and that “the
financial threshold is a proxy for an extension of the time
provided by the unlawful detainer statute.” AAGLA argues that
“[b]ecause the purpose and effect of the ordinance is to delay
evictions based on nonpayment it is properly viewed as a
procedural limitation and is preempted.” In supplemental
briefing, AAGLA argues the Eviction Threshold Ordinance
should be preempted by the Unlawful Detainer Act under the
same reasoning as the municipal notice and cure measure we
found to be preempted in Pasadena (addressed below), because
the ordinance was adopted for the “improper purpose” of
“extend[ing] the cure period provided by state law before a
landlord may pursue an eviction for nonpayment of rent.”
       The City, Intervenors, and amici curiae (City and County of
San Francisco and City of Santa Monica) argue the ordinance
merely creates a substantive defense to eviction within the City’s
established police power to regulate the grounds for eviction, such
that a “just cause” to evict a tenant for nonpayment of rent does
not exist until a particular monetary threshold is met. In their
view, even if the ordinance has the effect and purpose of giving
tenants more time to pay overdue rent before an eviction can
occur, this “procedural impact” is necessary to regulate the
substantive grounds of the new defense. They further argue the

Other Sections in This Document (77)

Full Text