In reversal, judge says tenants rights law remains for now

Many Los Angeles tenants will remain protected from eviction for nonpayment of rent for now, as a judge rethinks whether apartment owners are right that the city’s ordinance conflicts with state law.

Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff took the matter under submission after a hearing on the landlords’ proposed writ of mandate on Wednesday, reversing a tentative ruling he issued granting the association’s challenge to the ordinance.

The lawsuit by the Apartment Association of Los Angeles County claims that the city violated state law by adopting Ordinance 187763, which prohibits landlords from evicting tenants for rent default up to a certain amount. They also object to Ordinance 187764, which requires landlords to pay relocation assistance to tenants who move out due to a rent increase. Apartment Association of Los Angeles County Inc. v. City of Los Angeles et al., 23STCP00720 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Mar. 3, 2023).

In a tentative ruling issued Wednesday morning, Beckloff denied the plaintiff’s cause of action claiming the relocation assistance ordinance violates the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which grants landlords the right to set rental rates.

In contrast, Beckloff tentatively granted the challenge to the eviction protection ordinance. He ruled that it conflicted with Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161, which gives landlords the right to evict tenants who default on their rent. In the tentative, Beckloff said the ordinance is procedural in nature, and is thus preempted by state law.

At Wednesday’s hearing, however, Los Angeles Deputy City Attorney Elaine Zhong argued that the ordinance avoids conflicting with Section 1161 because it doesn’t directly regulate landlords’ procedural ability to evict tenants, but rather provides substantive guidance.

“What we’re saying is you can get evicted when you default in paying your rent … but this is how much you need to default by before you can start the mechanism,” Zhong said.

Peter J. Howell of Rutan & Tucker LLP, who appeared on behalf of the landlords’ association, rejected Zhong’s characterization of the ordinance in what Beckloff termed a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” argument.

“They are trying to change a procedure set forth by the Legislature and eliminate that very expedited procedure,” said Howell, who practices out of Costa Mesa.

“I think the court needs to look at purpose and effect,” he continued. “Here, I think, the legislative history … and everything else shows that the city was deliberately — their concern was just timing, this ordinance is really about timing.”

“I think there’s no dispute that they are trying to achieve a procedural effect here,” Howell said.

The parties also further discussed the plaintiff’s challenge to the relocation assistance ordinance under Costa-Hawkins, which Howell said does preempt the ordinance.

The city, Howell said, “essentially second-guessed that policy decision made by the Legislature, and said, ‘We don’t think landlords should be raising the rent more than 5 or 10% … and we are going to discourage them and effectively penalize them.”

After hearing the arguments, Beckloff took the matter under submission. No further proceedings are scheduled in the case for the time being.