Significant California Lawsuits

RENTAL HOUSING LAWSUITS
CALIFORNIA REPOSITORY ON LEGAL ACTION

 

* Local mandate coverage through CalRHA’s local affiliates and the state.
For a list of our local affiliates please CLICK HERE.

CalRHA Affiliate Legal Funds

Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles (AAGLA)
Apartment Association of Orange County (AAOC)
Santa Barbara Rental Property Owners Association (SBRPA)
Southern California Rental Housing Association (SoCalRHA)


Date filed: October 13, 2021
Attorney for Plaintiffs: Dorsey & Whitney LLP
Plaintiffs: National Apartment Association (NAA) & Large National Rental Housing Providers
Defendants: United States Government

Filing Information: United States Court of Federal Claims, Case No. 1:21-cv-01621-AOB

First Amended Complaint Against CDC Eviction Moratoirum, Class Action Lawsuit to Recover Damages; August 13, 2021. Motion to Dismiss Opinion & Order, May 17, 2022.

Claims:

  • Taking Without Just Compensation. The Constitution requires just compensation for the taking.
  • Illegal Exaction. The CDC Order has enriched the Government at Plaintiffs’ expense, directly or in effect, by illegally imposing costs and expenses on Plaintiffs that Plaintiffs should not have to bear and that the Government otherwise would bear, including without limitation the cost of housing delinquent or non-rent paying individuals.


Case Progression:

  • On appeal

Date filed: August 5, 2021
Attorney for Plaintiffs: FisherBroyles LLP
Plaintiffs: California Rental Housing Association (CalRHA), Mary Montano and Trang Ho
Defendants: Gavin Newsom, Rob Bonta, and DOES 1-20

Affiliates Impacted: AAGLA, AAOC, BPOA, EBRHA, NCRPA, NVPOA, SBRPA, SCRHA, SPOSFI

Case No. 2:21-cv-01394-JAM-JDP; Court: U.S. District Court Eastern District of California

Filing Information: Case No. 2:21-cv-01394-JAM-JDP, First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, and Damages.; Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment or Adjudication; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof, June 17, 2022; Appellants’ Opening Brief on Appeal; January 1, 2023; Appellants’ Answering Brief on Appeal; March 23, 2023.

Claims:

  • Violation of the Due Process Clause of the US Constitution. Precludes a landlord from contesting that certification and denies the landlord a hearing. This scheme violates the USB Supre Court’s longstanding teaching that ordinarily no man can be a judge in his own case consistent with the Due Process Clause.
  • Violation of the Takings Clause of the US Constitution. the taking is not for a public use or purpose. The
    moratorium’s express purpose and effect are to benefit “a particular class of identifiable individuals”—namely, tenants. Provides no immediate or adequate mechanism for compensating owners for the loss of their property rights.
  • Violation of the Contracts Clause of the US Constitution. AB 832 unilaterally rewrites all rental agreements within the State to eliminate the contractual right to repossess units for nonpayment of rent, without any attempt to tie such wholesale revisions to the COVID-19 pandemic. Defendants’ conduct in adopting and enforcing that law has deprived and, unless enjoined, will continue to deprive owners of their rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the United States Constitution and/or laws of the United States to which owners are entitled.


Media Coverage:

  • To be reported


Case Progression:

  • On appeal

Date filed: March 1, 2022
Attorney for Plaintiffs: Zacks, Patterson & Freedman
Plaintiffs: Housing Providers of America (HPOA), and Five Individual Owners
Defendants: Alameda County, Alameda County Board of Supervisors, City of Oakland, and Oakland City Council

Affiliates Impacted: BPOA, EBRHA

Case No. 42; Court: U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California

Filing Information: Case #42 U.S.C § 1983; C.C.P § 1085, Complaint for Damages; Petition for Writ and Reqeust For Immediate Stay, March 1, 2022.

Claims:

  • Violation of 5th Amendment to the US Constitution. Prohibition of the taking of private property for public use without just compensation.
  • Inverse Condemnation. Takings without just compensation and violate Plantiffs’ rights protected by the California Constitution.
  • Violation of Due Process. Violation of substantive and procedural due process rights under the US Constitution.
  • Violation of Equal Protection. Violates right to equal protection of the laws, on their face and as applied.
  • Writ of Mandate. Authorizes the Cout to set aside public agency decisions involving a prejudicial abuse of discretion or error of law.


Media Coverage:


Case Progression:

  • November 22, 2022: Request for Order of Summary Judgement denied, entered by Federal Judge Laurel Beeler in San Francisco. [Read opinion here.]
  • April 6, 2023: Hearing for case progression. Awaiting decision by judge.

Initial Filing Date: August 6, 2021
Attorney for Plaintiffs: Doug Dennington
Plaintiffs: GHP Management Corporation
Defendants: County of Los Angeles

Affiliates Impacted: AAGLA

Case No. 21-CHCV00595; Court: U.S. District Court fo the Central California District

Filing Information: ?

Claims:

  • TBA

Case Progression:

  • April 15, 2022: County demurrers overruled. Litigation for damages to proceed.
  • July 27, 2022: Hearing;
  • August 9, 2022: Hearing

Initial Filing Date: March 7, 2022
Attorney for Plaintiffs: Rutan & Tucker, LLP
Plaintiffs: Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles and the Apartment Owners Association of California, Inc.
Defendants: County of Los Angeles and Does 1-25

Affiliates Impacted: AAGLA

Case No. 22-STCV08225; Court: Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Central Justice Center

Filing Information: Case No. 22STCV08225, Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief to Enjoin Enforcement of County of Los Angeles’ Renewed COVID-19 Eviction Ban

Claims:

  • Procedural Due Process – Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. Defendants are depriving property owners of their property rights without providing an adequate procedural remedy by implementing the Renewed Eviction Ban’s provisions foreclosing property owners from commencing or prosecuting eviction proceedings upon the submission of a tenant’s self-certification.
  • Substantive Due Process – Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. In the absence of declaratory and injunctive relief, property owners will continue to be irreparably harmed and to be subjected to this deprivation of rights guaranteed to them by the United States Constitution.
  • Void for Vagueness – Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. In the absence of declaratory and injunctive relief, property owners will continue to be irreparably harmed and to be subjected to this deprivation of rights guaranteed to them by the United States Constitution.
  • Declaratory Relief Code of Civil Procedure § 1060. A declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time in order that Plaintiffs and Defendants may ascertain their rights and duties with respect to the validity and enforceability of the Renewed Eviction Ban.

Media Coverage:

Case Progression:

  • March 7, 2022: Request of judicial notice of new evidence in support of plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.
  • October 19, 2022: Plantiffs’ granted their motion for preliminary injunction.


Initial Filing Date: ????
Attorney for Plaintiffs: Rutan & Tucker, LLP
Plaintiffs: Apartment Owners Association of Los Angeles County, Inc.
Defendants: County of Los Angeles

Affiliates Impacted: AAGLA

Case No. CV 22-02085 DDP JEMx Court: U.S. District Court Central District of California

Filing Information: Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, October 21, 2022

Initial Filing Date: June 11, 2020
Attorney for Plaintiffs: Rutan & Tucker, LLP
Plaintiffs: Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles
Defendants: City of Los Angeles, Mayor Garcetti, and the City Council

Affiliates Impacted: AAGLA

Case No. 2:20-cv-05193-DDP-JEM; Court: U.S. District Court of the Central District of California

Filing(s) Information: Case No. 2:20-cv-05193-DDP-JEM Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, June 11, 2020. Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, August 7, 2020. Appeal from US District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 220-cv-05193-DDP-JEM. Petition for Writ of Certiorari, November 23, 2021, to review the judgement of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in the California Supreme Court.

Claims:

  • Violation of the Contracts Clause of the US Constitution. The Eviction Moratorium and Rent Freeze Ordinances fundamentally upend the contratual bargains struck between Plantiff’s members and their tenants by effectively relieving the tenants of their obligation to pay rent and comply with certain other provisions of their leases, and leaving owners, like Plaintiff’s members, without any recourse for an undetermined period of time.
  • Violation of the Contracts Clause of the California Constitution. The City seeks to substantially impair the obligations of the existing lease and/or rental agreements without justificaion, and in direct violation of the Contracts Clause.
  • Violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution. The Ordinances force property owners and lessors to accept the occpuation of tenants without any payment of rent concurrent with the occupancies.
  • Violation of the Takings Clause of the California Constitution. Prohibiting Plaintiff’s members from rightfully collecting rent from their tenants in the State of California, in exchange for the tenants’ lawful possession of Plaintiff’s properties, despite other compliance measures being taken to satisfy the public health interests at the state and to financially compensate those affected by COVID-19, violates Plaintiff’s fundamental Constitutional rights.
  • Violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Ordinances deprive Plaintiff’s members’ of their rights and liberties in the use of their properties…and specifically the unreasonable prohibition on the collection of rent and termination of rightful eviction processes.
  • Preemption by State Law. Prohibits property owners from serving eviction notices and/or filing unlawful detainer actions in various circumstances—and providing for penalties against owners who make such communications—the Eviction Moratorium conflicts with the litigation privilege set forth in California Civil Code section 47.
  • Violation of the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution. The City mandated that property owners allow tenants to continue to occupy rental units without paying rent, and without providing any mechanism for owners to be made whole. Such a mandate…deprived Plantiff’s members of all economically beneficial use of their properties without just compensation.

Media Coverage:

Case Progression:

  • November 13, 2020: Judgement entered by Federal Judge in Los Angeles. Rejection of prelimary injunction. [Read opinion here.]
  • August 25, 2021: Judgement entered, No. 20-56251, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. “Appellate panel upheld the trial court’s refusal to grant injunctive relief against the moraotirum on the basis that the landlords were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their Contracts Clause challenge.” [Read opinion here.]
  • March 11, 2022: Brief in Opposition for the City of Los Angeles. Petition denied by United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. [Read opinion here.]


Initial Filing Date: August 4, 2021
Attorney for Plaintiffs: Rutan & Tucker, LLP
Plaintiffs: GHP Management Corporation & Palmer Properties
Defendants: City of Los Angeles; and Does 1-25

Affiliates Impacted: AAGLA

Case No. 2:21-cv-06311; Court: U.S. District Court of the Central District of California

Filing Information: Complaint for Uncompensated Per Se Physical Taking in Violation of the Fifth Amendment; Uncompesnated Regulatory Taking In Violationof the 5th Amendment to US Constitution; Uncompensated Taking in Violation of Article 1, Section 19 of California Constitution.

Claims:

  • Uncompensated Per Se Physical Taking in Violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Eviction Moratorium constitutes the functional equivalent of the Defendants commandeering private property under the purported public purpose of providing housing to tenants affected by the fallout from COVID-19.
  • Uncompensated Regulatory Taking in Violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Eviction Moratorium does not merely “adjust[] the benefits and burdens of economic life to promote the common good,” Penn Central Trans. Co., 438 U.S. at 124, but instead effect a compensable taking.
  • Uncompensated Taking in Violation of Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution. The Eviction Moratorium constitutes a taking or damaging of private property without just compensation.

Media Coverage:

  • To be reported

Case Progression: 

  • November 16, 2022: Awaiting ruling on the city’s motion to dismiss.


Initial Filing Date: March 3, 2023
Attorney for Plaintiffs: Rutan & Tucker, LLP
Plaintiffs: Apartment Associaiton of Los Angeles County, Inc. dba Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles
Defendants: City of Los Angeles; Council of the City of Los Angeles and Does 1-100

Affiliates Impacted: AAGLA

Case No. xx; Court: Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of Los Angeles District

Filing Information: Verified Petition of Writ of Mandate and Compalint for Declaratory Relief, March 3, 2023

Claims:

  • Petition for Writ of Mandate – State Law Preemption of Ordinance No 187763. The Legislature has preempted the field of notification in landlord-tenant relationships.
  • Petition for Writ of Mandate – State Law Preemption of Ordinance No 187764. Local laws tha timpose a “prohibitive burden” on the exercise of a right granted by the Costa-Hawkins Act are thus preempted.
  • Declaratory Relief. Ordinances are preempted by state law and therefore void. Petitions memberswill suffer actual, imminent, and significant harm.

Media Coverage:

  • To be reported

Case Progression: 

  • To be reported

Initial Filing Date: February 14, 2023
Attorney for Plaintiffs: Rutan & Tucker, LLP
Plaintiffs: Apartment Association of Orange County
Defendants: City of Santa Ana; Santa Ana City Council; & Does 1-25, inclusive

Affiliates Impacted: AAOC

Case No. XX; Court: Superior Court of California for the Countyof Orange, Central Justice Center

Filing(s) Information: Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, February 14, 2023.

Claims:

  • Due Process-Fourteenth Amendment of U.S. Constitution. Acting under color of state law, Defendant has caused, and will continue to cause, the violation of the City’s property owners’ procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, including property owner members of Plaintiff.
  • Prohibition on Property Qualifications for Holding Office – Article I, Section 22 of the California Constitution. Each of the Ordinance’s Rental Housing Board Member classes is thus predicated on certain property qualifications (both positive and negative), and all are in violation of Article I, Section 22 of the California Constitution.
  • Due Process – Fourteenth Amendment of U.S. Constitution. The face of the Ordinance makes it apparent that the effect of the Ordinance’s rent control provisions will necessarily be to lower rents more than reasonably required for the Ordinance’s legitimate purposes, if any exist, and are thus constitutionally confiscatory.
  • Unlawful Search – Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. By forcing property owners to enroll in the Rental Registry and supply the information demanded of them, the City will engage in unreasonable and unlawful searches in contravention of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
  • Declaratory Relief. Plaintiff contends, for the aforesaid reasons, that the Ordinance is illegal and violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Media Coverage:

Case Progression:

  • To be updated

Initial Filing Date: May 13, 2021
Attorney for Plaintiffs: FisherBroyles LLP
Plaintiffs: Southern California Rental Housing Association
Defendants: County of San Diego, Board of Supervisors of San Diego County, Does 1-20 inclusive.

Affiliates Impacted: SCRHA

Case No. 3:21CV0912 DMS DEB; Court: U.S. Disrict Court Southern District of California

Filing Information: Case No. ’21CV0912 DMS DEB, Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, and Damages, May 13, 2021.

Claims:

  • Violation of the Contracts Clause of the US Constitutions. Ordinance substantially impairs the contractrual relationship between rental housing owners and their tenants.
  • Violation of the Takings Clause of the US Constitution. Ordinance effects a per se taking of rental housing owners’ properties because it indefinitely grants tenant near-unqualified access to and use of the properties.
  • Violation of Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution. Ordinance has no lawful application outside the unincorporated areas of the County. Plaintiff’s members with rental housing properties in cities within the County are immediately harmed, an will continue to be harmed by an Ordinance that constitutionally should not apply to them or their properties.

Media Coverage:

Case Progression:

  • June 1, 2021: Denial of requiest for temporary restraining order to stop eviction moraotirum from being enforced for 18 days.
  • July 27, 2021: Denial of SCRHA motion, citing the temporary nature and public interest. Appeal to the 9th Circuit Court filed.

[Need more info: Appeal denied, upheld judge’s decision. Eviction moratorium subsequently expired. SCRHA filed new lawsuit to prevent future similar eviction moratoriums being put into place.]

Initial Filing Date: March 21, 2022
Attorney for Plaintiffs: Zacks, Freedman & Patterson, PC
Plaintiffs: San Francisco Apartment Association (SFAA) & Small Property Owners San Francisco Institute (SPOSFI)
Defendants: San Francisco Board of Supervisors

Affiliates Impacted: SPOSFI

Filing Information: Petition for Writ of Mandate, March 21, 2022. Order Granting Petition for Writ of Mandate, May 27, 2022.

Case No. CPF-22-517718; Court: Superior Court of the State of California In and for the County of San Francisco

Claims:

  • California has determined that residential tenants are only entitled to be given 3 days notice to pay rent in default or quit before their landlords may invoke unlawful detainer proceedings. The Ordinance is facially invalid because it is preempted by California law, including but not limited to, Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1159, et seq.

Media Coverage:

Case Progression:

  • March 23, 2022: Court ordered temporary stay on notice and cure ordinance until lawsuit is resolved.
  • September 27, 2022: Court issued decision preventing city from enforcing 10-day warning and cure period for evictions and unlawful detainers for non-payment of rent.
  • October 20, 2022: City of San Francisco appealed the decision.

 

While the appeal is pending, rental housing providers do not need to serve a 10-day warning notice with respect to eviction notice and/or unlawful detainers for non-payment of rent.

Initial Filing Date: February 9, 2023
Attorney for Plaintiffs: Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross & Leoni LLP
Plaintiffs: San Francisco Apartment Association (SFAA); San Francisco Association of Realtors; Small Property Owners San Francisco Institute (SPOSFI)
Defendants: City & County of San Francisco; Jose Cisneros, Tax Collector

Affiliates Impacted: SPOSFI

Case No. CGC-23-604600; Court: Superior Court of the State of California In and for the County of San Francisco.

Filing Information: Verified Complaint to Invalidate Illegal Special Tax

Claims:

  • Violation of the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Takings Clause). Proposition M seeks to compel property-owners to forfeit their constitutional “power to exclude,” Loretto, 458 U.S. at 435, by imposing substantial charges on the exercise of that right. As such, the Proposition M constitutes a taking without just compensation, and thus violates Plaintiffs’ rights protected by the United States Constitution.
  • Violation of Article XI, 7, of the California Constitution (State Law Preemption by the Ellis Act). No public entity … shall, by statute, ordinance, or regulation, or by administrative action implementing any statute, ordinance or regulation, compel the owner of any residential real property to offer, or to continue to offer, accommodations in the property for rent or lease.
  • Violation of Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution & Cal. Const. art. I, 7 (Substantive Due Process). The Supreme Court has held that the protection of close familial relationships is a fundamental liberty interest protected by the due process clause.
  • Violation of Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constituion & Cal. Const. art. I, 7 (Equal Protection). By exempting residential units that are leased to strangers from taxation but subjecting residential units leased to close family members to taxation, Proposition M violates equal protection.
  • Violation of Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constituion & Cal. Const. art. I, 1(Right of Privacy). Proposition M’s efforts to compel property-owners to allow units they own to be occupied are unconstitutional as applied to owners who reside on the property to be taxed, such as Plaintiffs Debbane and Friedland, who do not wish to share their homes with others. This application of the Proposition violates the fundamental constitutional right of privacy.

Media Coverage:

Case Progression:

  • To be reported

Date filed: November 28, 2018
Attorney for Plaintiffs: Pacific Legal Foundation
Plaintiffs: Ballinger
Defendants: City of Oakland

Affiliates Affected: EBRHA

Case No. 19-16550; Court: U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California, 9th Circuit

Filing Information: Complaint for Violation of Federal Civil Rights; Monetary, Delcaratory, & Injunctive Relief, November 28, 2018; Petition for Writ of Certiorari, February 23, 2022.

Claims:

  • Taking of Private Property for a Private Purpose. The Ordinance serves a private purpose and use and therefore violates the Public Use Clause of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
  • Unconsitutional Extraction of Private Property. The City has failed to pay the just compensation the Ballingers are entitled to as a result of the unconstitutional taking.
  • Unconstituional Regulatory Taking. The City has failed to pay the just compensation the Ballingers are entitled to as a result of the unconstitutional taking.
  • Violation of Due Process. The retroactive nature of the Ordinance is irrational, unfair, and illegitimate.
  • Unreasonable Seizure in Violation of the Fourth Amendment. The tenant payment provisions of the Ordinance unreasonably seize the Ballingers’ property.
  • Interference with the Obligation of Contract. The Ordinance arbitrarily, irrationally, and illegitimately interferes with and imposes unreasonable conditions on the Ballingers’ existing contract.
  • Violation of the Ellis Act as Applied to Plaintiffs. The Ordinance’s tenant payment provisions constitute an unreasonable, excessive, and impermissible burden on the Ballingers’ Ellis Act right to withdraw their rental home from the rental market.

Media Coverage:

Case Progression:

  • The Court determined that the fee represents a walth-transfer provision and is not unconsitutional, dismissing the Ballinger’s claims. Plaintiffs filed an appeal, but the 9th Circuit panel rejected their assertion that the City placed an unconstitutional condition on the preferred use of their home, affirming the dismissal of plantiffs’ claims. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

Date filed: February 25, 2022
Attorney for Plaintiffs: FisherBroyles LLP
Plaintiffs: Santa Barbara Rental Property Association & Nogara LLC
Defendants: City of Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara City Council, City Attorney, Does 1-20

Affiliates Affected: SBRPA

Case No. 222-cv-01315-SK; Court: U.S. District Court Central District of California

Filing Information: Federal Civil Rights Complaint for Equitable Relief and Damages

Claims:

  • Facial and As-Applied Violation of the Contracts Clause. The Relocation Payment Law impairs existing contracts, including specifically Nogara’s lease contract, in violation of the Contracts Clause.
  • Facial and As-Applied Violation of the Takings Clause of the US Constitution. The relocation payment requirement violates the Public Use and Just Compensation Clauses and is unconstitutional.
  • Facial and As-Applied Violation of the Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine. The Relocation Payment Law fails the “nexus” and “rough proportionality” tests of Nollan and Dolan, and therefore violates the unconstitutional conditions doctrine.
  • Unlawful Relocation Payment Amount. The Relocation Payment Law’s relocation payment amount is unlawful because it is arbitrary, capricious and/or entirely lacking in evidentiary support.

Media Coverage:

  • To be reported

Case Progression:

  • July 11, 2022: Court granted Defendants motion to dismiss.