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

1,086 chars

The City argues the Relocation Assistance Ordinance falls
within the savings clause because it “does not restrict rents but
mitigates the harm of constructive evictions.” Intervenors
likewise argue the ordinance “regulates evictions, not rental
rates,” and it “mitigates the impacts of large rent increases that
result in constructive eviction.” We previously rejected these
arguments in Pasadena: “[T]he relocation assistance
requirement does not pertain to, much less regulate, constructive
evictions. First, the savings clause refers to evictions, not
constructive evictions, and savings clauses are typically strictly
construed. [Citation.] Second, even if we assume the savings
clause permits local regulation of the basis for constructive
evictions, we disagree with the premise that tenants who are
displaced because they cannot pay lawful, good faith rent
increases are ‘constructively evicted.’ ” (Pasadena, supra,
117 Cal.App.5th at p. 238.)
       “ ‘An eviction is constructive if the landlord engages in acts
that render the premises unfit for occupancy for the purpose for

Other Sections in This Document (77)

Full Text