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

1,873 chars

16
involved an ordinance prohibiting no-fault evictions if a child or
educator resided in the rental unit, and “the effective date of the
notice of termination of tenancy falls during the school year.” (Id.
at pp. 513, 518.) SFAA 2018 determined the ordinance was not
procedural despite its impact on the timing of evictions because
“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 . . . is necessary to ‘regulate the substantive
grounds’ of the defense it creates.” (Id. at p. 518.) Tenants in
this protected category only had a substantive defense during the
school year, after which landlords could “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.” (Ibid.) Even if there was an “inherent delay
on a landlord’s unlawful detainer remedy” under the ordinance,
the court concluded “the Ordinance is substantive for purposes of
Birkenfeld’s preemption analysis,” and not preempted by the
unlawful detainer statutes. (Ibid.)
       The notice and cure provisions in Pasadena are distinct
from the Eviction Threshold Ordinance. In Pasadena, we
examined whether a municipal initiative measure that required
landlords to provide a “Written Notice to Cease” to tenants and
give them an additional “reasonable period” to cure the
nonpayment of rent was preempted by the unlawful detainer
statutes. (Pasadena, supra, 117 Cal.App.5th at pp. 245-246.)
The ordinance was “worded to provide that landlords may not
take action to terminate a tenancy unless the tenant has failed to

Other Sections in This Document (77)

Full Text