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

1,546 chars

72
[the] tenancy, . . . including but not limited to . . . serving any . . .
eviction notice,” unless “[t]he Tenant has failed, after receiving a
Written Notice to Cease, to pay the Rent.” (§ 1806(a)(1), italics
added.) A landlord’s failure to serve the tenant with the Written
Notice to Cease constitutes a complete affirmative defense in an
unlawful detainer or other action by the landlord to recover
possession of the rental unit. (§§ 1806(l), 1817(d).)
       Petitioners correctly note that a landlord must serve a
nonpaying tenant with a Written Notice to Cease—which,
according to its definition under section 1803(cc)(1), must provide
a “reasonable period” to cure the nonpayment of rent—before the
landlord may “serv[e] any . . . eviction notice,” including a three-
day notice under Code of Civil Procedure section 1161,
subdivision (2). They assert that this requirement for an
additional cure period for the nonpayment of rent—that is, the
“reasonable period” described by section 1803(cc)(1)— necessarily
extends the statutory requirement for three days’ notice.
Respondents do not disagree that service of a Written Notice to
Cease must precede a three-day notice but contend that a
landlord may serve the Written Notice to Cease essentially
concurrently with, or seconds before, a three-day notice. In other
words, they contend, the “reasonable period” described by section
1803(cc)(1) can run simultaneously with the three-day notice
period under Code of Civil Procedure section 1161, subdivision
(2), and does not extend it. 21

Other Sections in This Document (114)

Full Text