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

868 chars

In Bullard [v. San Francisco Residential Rent
Stabilization Bd. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 488,] 491,
the court rejected the argument that an ordinance
restricting the rent a landlord could charge for a
replacement unit after the tenant was evicted for an
owner move-in constituted regulation of a “ground[]
for eviction” for purposes of the analogous savings
clause under the Costa-Hawkins Act’s vacancy
decontrol provisions. (See Civ. Code, § 1954.53, subd.
(e).) The court explained, “The ground for eviction
was that Landlords sought to recover possession of a
unit for use as their principal residence. The
requirement that they offer another unit at a
regulated rent was a condition imposed by the rent
control ordinance on their recovery of possession, but
it cannot be deemed in any ordinary sense of the term
a ‘ground’ for the eviction.” (Bullard, at p. 491; see

Other Sections in This Document (77)

Full Text