A state appeals panel has partially reversed a lower court’s ruling, finding San Francisco trespassed on state law with a new ordinance affording rental tenants more time to contest at-fault evictions.
The San Francisco Apartment Association and Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute brought a legal challenge to the 2022 San Francisco Board of Supervisors ordinance. After San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Charles Haines partially granted the groups’ request for a court order inhibiting enforcement, specifically with regard to evictions linked to nonpayment, both sides appealed.
The California First District Appellate Court affirmed that part of Judge Haines’ ruling but reversed the remainder because it concluded state law preempts the entire ordinance. Justice Tara Desautels wrote the panel’s opinion, filed Sept. 11; Justices Therese Stewart and James Richman concurred.
According to Desautels, the state’s civil procedure codes known as the Unlawful Detainer Act govern disputes over property occupancy. In addition to nonpayment, other grounds for eviction include breach of a material lease term, nuisance and using the property for an illegal purpose. Under all circumstances, landlords are required to give tenants three days of notice before acting. Tenants who owe money or have violated a lease term can remedy those conditions.
Although the San Francisco Board enacted its rental housing ordinance in 1979, a February 2022 amendment added language intended to “reduce the undue hardship suffered by tenants who face sudden evictions and promote economy in the use of judicial resources, while still protecting the property owners.” Under the change, tenants would have 10 days to fix anything the landlord reported as grounds for eviction.
Judge Haines said the question of evictions for nonpayment was clear in favor of the landlord groups but found “a split of authority as to the allowable notice periods” for other issues. Desautels said a key issue was interpretation of a 1976 California Supreme Court opinion, Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley, in which the court allowed the city could not enact its own procedures regarding property rights but could make “substantive defenses available” to tenants.
The associations argued the San Francisco ordinance “is aimed at the timing of eviction and thus may be procedural in nature,” Desautels wrote, noting the city insisted the actual text “may be interpreted as regulating the substantive grounds for eviction.”
The panel then highlighted several reasons for finding San Francisco’s ordinance to be procedural and therefore not allowed.
Primarily the ordinance adds days to the state law minimum and allows all tenants facing eviction to cure the underlying condition, making the eviction procedure different in the city. The panel further quoted elected officials discussing the ordinance before its enactment to illustrate a clear procedural purpose.
The city said it was able to stave off an earlier challenge from the same groups to an ordinance creating a defense to certain no fault evictions involving teachers or minor students during the school year. But the panel said the purpose there was substantive — to protect the continuity of the school year — and noted it abated during summer. Further, the ordinance didn’t require landlords to do anything extra to advance an eviction, whereas the law at issue on appeal imposed new obligations.
“The ordinance plainly prohibits a landlord from proceeding under the state statutory timeline by requiring the additional 10-day warning and cure period,” Desautels wrote. “This preemption invalidates not just the provision regarding notice for nonpayment of rent, but the entire ordinance.”
The panel ordered the Superior Court to bar San Francisco from enforcing the ordinance and said the landlord associations are entitled to compensation for their costs in bringing the appeal.
San Francisco was represented by City Attorney David Chiu and Deputy Wayne Snodgrass. The city did not respond to a request for comment.
Plaintiffs were represented by the firm of Zacks & Freedman, which released a statement on the ruling.
Attorney Emily Brough said she was pleased with the decision as it “confirmed and clarified longstanding authority, which prohibits cities from interfering in the state (unlawful detainer) procedures. While local government certainly has the right to regulate evictions, the timeline and notice requirements set forth by the state are off limits.
"Otherwise, what’s to prohibit local government from enacting a 30-, 60- or 365-day warning requirement? That result not only would significantly erode property rights, but a multitude of various notice requirements amongst different jurisdictions throughout California could cause chaos in the judicial system.”