There was one straight grant of review on yesterday’s conference report.
Preemption of local unlawful detainer ordinance.
In Apartment Association of Los Angeles County, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, the court granted review and limited the issue to: “Does the Unlawful Detainer Act (Code Civ. Proc., § 1159 et seq.) preempt a local ordinance setting a monetary threshold requirement for unpaid rent before a landlord may commence unlawful detainer proceedings.”
This case began as a challenge to two Los Angeles ordinances enacted in 2023. The Eviction Threshold Ordinance restricts a landlord’s ability to bring an unlawful detainer action until a tenant owes more than “one month of fair market rent” as determined by HUD figures. The Relocation Assistance Ordinance requires landlords to pay relocation assistance to tenants in non-rent-controlled units who are displaced by rent increases exceeding the lesser of Consumer Price Index plus five percent or ten percent.
The Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles challenged both ordinances as preempted by state law. The trial court concluded neither ordinance was preempted. The Second District, Division Seven, reversed in part. As to the Eviction Threshold Ordinance, the court agreed it is not preempted by the Unlawful Detainer Act because it is a permissible substantive regulation of the grounds for eviction within the city’s police power. It sets a monetary precondition for when a cause of action accrues rather than imposing additional notice requirements or extending the statutory timeline. As to the Relocation Assistance Ordinance, the court held that it is preempted, because requiring landlords to pay relocation assistance frustrates the purpose of the Costa-Hawkins Act, which specifically authorizes landlords to raise rents to fair market value.
The court granted review on the issue involving the first ordinance—whether the Unlawful Detainer Act preempts the Eviction Threshold Ordinance.
Criminal case grant-and-holds
In People v. Miller and People v. Owens, the court granted review holding for a decision People v. Eaton (see here).
In People v. Randle, the court granted the petitions of two petitioners (Broadnax and Randle), holding for People v. Mares (see here). The court denied to review a case by a third petitioner (Furdge).
Grant-and-transfer in transgender inmate case
In In re Madrid, the petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s property policy that denies male and transgender female inmates access to personal property that is otherwise allowed to female inmates. The Third Appellate District denied the petition in an unpublished opinion, relying on an opinion from the Fifth Appellate District that was issued after the petition was filed. The Supreme Court granted review and transferred the case back to the Third District to allow supplemental briefing.
Denial in criminal case with two votes for review
The court denied review in People v. Dzul-Canul. Justices Liu and Evans voted to grant. The First Appellate District, Division Four, summarily denied a writ petition by a criminal defendant seeking pretrial mental health diversion, over a dissent by Justice Goldman. No opinion was issued, but the text of Justice Goldman’s dissent from the order denying the petition appears on the Court of Appeal docket.
