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

1,302 chars

57
section 1806(b)(C) and the Costa-Hawkins Act provision allowing
landlords to raise rents on exempt units at will.
        “Ruling on a facial challenge to a local ordinance, the court
considers the text of the measure itself, not its application to any
particular circumstances or individual.” (T-Mobile West LLC v.
City and County of San Francisco (2019) 6 Cal.5th 1107, 1117;
accord, San Francisco Apartment Assn. v. City and County of San
Francisco (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 463, 487; see Travis v. County of
Santa Cruz (2004) 33 Cal.4th 757, 767 [facial challenge to an
ordinance is “ ‘predicated on a theory that the mere enactment of
the . . . ordinance worked a [constitutional violation]”].)
“[A]lthough we may not invalidate a statute simply because in
some future hypothetical situation constitutional problems may
arise [citation], neither may we . . . uphold the law simply
because in some hypothetical situation it might lead to a
permissible result.” (California Teachers Assn. v. State of
California (1999) 20 Cal.4th 327, 347.) In assessing a facial
challenge, “ ‘ “[t]he proper focus of constitutional inquiry is the
group for whom the law is a restriction, not the group for whom
the law is irrelevant.” ’ ” (Tom v. City and County of San
Francisco (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 674, 680.) 17

Other Sections in This Document (114)

Full Text