Cal. Apartment Assn. v. City of Pasadena (2025)

Citation: Cal. Apartment Assn. v. City of Pasadena (2025)
Parent Document: Cal. Apartment Assn. v. City of Pasadena (2025)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2025-12-18
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10761039/cal-apartment-assn-v-city-of-pasadena/ ↗

Full Text

1,191 chars

54
      In addition, for certain properties still covered by local rent
control laws, another provision of the Costa-Hawkins Act, Civil
Code section 1954.53, instituted a system of “vacancy decontrol,”
which generally permits landlords “to set the rent on a vacant
unit at whatever price they choose.” (NCR Properties, supra,
89 Cal.App.5th at p. 47; see Civ. Code, § 1954.53; Action
Apartment, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 1237; Apartment Assn. of Los
Angeles County, supra, 173 Cal.App.4th at p. 24 [Civil Code
section 1954.53 “established ‘vacancy decontrol for residential
dwelling units where the former tenant has voluntarily vacated,
abandoned or been legally evicted’ ”].)
      Petitioners’ challenge is based on the landlords’ right under
Civil Code section 1954.52 to adjust at will the rent on rental
units that the Costa-Hawkins Act exempts from local rent control
laws (exempt units).
             b.    Field preemption does not apply
      Petitioners first contend that Measure H’s relocation
assistance requirement under section 1806(b)(C) is invalid
because it is subject to field preemption under the Costa-Hawkins
Act. They contend the Costa-Hawkins Act “is a comprehensive

Other Sections in This Document (114)

Full Text