California Legal Brief

The Rule of Apartment Association of Los Angeles County, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles is that a municipal ordinance creating a monetary threshold that must be satisfied before a cause of action for unlawful detainer accrues is a permissible substantive regulation of the grounds for eviction rather than an impermissible procedural limitation on the unlawful detainer statutes, under circumstances where the ordinance does not extend the unlawful detainer timeline, does not prohibit landlords from proceeding under the state statutory timeline, and does not require landlords to take affirmative action before commencing unlawful detainer proceedings.

Appeal from judgment after court trial in Superior Court, Los Angeles County.

Plaintiff Appellant was Apartment Association of Los Angeles County, Inc. (AAGLA) — the landlord association challenging two rent control ordinances.

Defendants Respondents were City of Los Angeles et al. — the municipal entity that enacted the contested ordinances.

The suit sounded in administrative law challenging municipal ordinances. The case also involved claims for declaratory relief and petition for writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were that in February 2023, the City of Los Angeles adopted two ordinances: (1) the Eviction Threshold Ordinance limiting evictions for failure to pay rent to cases where the amount owed exceeds "one month of fair market rent," and (2) the Relocation Assistance Ordinance requiring payment of relocation assistance to tenants displaced by certain lawful rent increases. AAGLA filed suit claiming both ordinances were preempted by state law.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court denied AAGLA's petition for writ of mandate and request for declaratory relief, ruling that neither ordinance was preempted by state law and both were within the City's police power.

The key question(s) on Appeal: 1. Whether the Eviction Threshold Ordinance's monetary threshold requirement constitutes an improper procedural limitation on the timeline for summary evictions under the Unlawful Detainer Act. 2. Whether the Relocation Assistance Ordinance's requirement that landlords pay relocation assistance to tenants displaced by lawful rent increases is preempted by the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act.

The Appellate Court held that the Eviction Threshold Ordinance creates a substantive defense to eviction by establishing a monetary precondition (nonpayment equal to one month's fair market rent) that must be satisfied before unlawful detainer proceedings can commence, rather than imposing procedural barriers, and is therefore within the City's police power and not preempted by the Unlawful Detainer Act.

The case is inapplicable when the municipal ordinance extends the unlawful detainer timeline, prohibits landlords from proceeding under state statutory timelines, requires landlords to take affirmative action (such as serving additional notices or providing cure periods) before commencing unlawful detainer proceedings, or eliminates nonpayment of rent entirely as a basis for eviction.

The case leaves open the question of whether a city may eliminate default in payment of rent as a basis for eviction altogether, and the broader implications of municipal authority to set higher monetary thresholds or prohibit evictions for nonpayment entirely.