Zacks & Freedman PC’s Clients Prevail in Their Challenge to San Francisco’s Attempt to Interfere With State Unlawful Detainer Timelines

In SFAA v. CCSF, Zacks & Freedman’s clients, and landlords throughout San Francisco, enjoyed a big win against the city this week, in its most recent attempt to stifle landlords’ state law rights. State unlawful detainer (UD) statutes require landlords to serve a 3-day notice on tenants who fail to pay rent or cure other lease violations. San Francisco’s recently enacted “10-day warning” ordinance lengthened that notice requirement, requiring an additional 10-day “warning and opportunity to cure” notice before landlords were permitted to invoke the 3-day state UD procedure.

Past court decisions, including those from the California Supreme Court, have held that the UD statutes govern the “procedure” that landlords must follow—that is, the required notice, timelines, etc.— when seeking to evict tenants for lease violations, and local government is prohibited from interfering with that statutory regime. On the other hand, courts have held local governments are permitted to regulate in the “substantive” area of UD law, such as enacting rules related to protections against eviction. Many of these decisions have, however, been far from clearcut, recognizing that a blurry line often exists between a “procedural” regulation and “substantive” one.

The property association plaintiffs in SFAA v. CCSF, San Francisco Apartment Association and Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute, argued that the additional procedure required by the 10-day warning ordinance conflicted with, and was preempted by the state UD statutes. San Francisco argued that the warning requirement was “substantive” because it was embedded within the regulation’s eviction protections. The trial court agreed with the plaintiffs in part, based upon what the trial court perceived as a split of authority in past cases, and only struck a portion of the ordinance. Both San Francisco and the SFAA plaintiffs appealed the trial court’s order to the California Court of Appeal, First District.

In a full victory for the SFAA plaintiffs, the Court held the 10-day warning ordinance was completely preempted by state law. In a published opinion written by Justice Tara Desautels, the Court opined:

“Plaintiffs argue that [the 10-day warning notice] directly contradicts the three-day notice period provided by [the UD statutes]. We agree. The ordinance plainly prohibits a landlord from proceeding under the state statutory timeline by requiring the additional 10-day warning and cure period.”

In short, the Court determined that no blurry line existed here; the ordinance was purely procedural, and therefore interfered in the legislative domain of the State.

Emily Brough, attorney for the SFAA plaintiffs, expressed she was pleased with the Court’s decision, which “confirmed and clarified longstanding authority, which prohibits cities from interfering in the state UD 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.”

The Court’s full opinion may be read HERE.