UD Registry, Inc. v. State of California

Good Law
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 378·34 Cal. App. 4th 107·40 Cal. Rptr. 2d 228·95 Daily Journal DAR 5197·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3046
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 21, 1995Docket Nos. B077282, B077283California3,285 words

Opinion

Opinion

Epstein, J.

At issue in this case is “whether a State may completely suppress the dissemination of concededly truthful information about entirely lawful activity, fearful of that information’s effect upon its disseminators and its recipients.” (Va. Pharmacy Bd. v. Va. Consumer Council (1976) 425 U.S. 748, 773 [ 48 L.Ed.2d 346, 365 , 96 S.Ct. 1817 ].) We decide, as did the United States Supreme Court, that the answer is “no.”

The tension here is between the First Amendment right to free speech and the Legislature’s desire to protect prospective tenants by limiting the information a credit agency may report regarding a tenant’s involvement in unlawful detainer actions. (Civ. Code, § 1785.13, subd. (a)(3); all statutory references are to this code unless otherwise stated.) The trial court found the statute unconstitutional, and we affirm that ruling.

Factual and Procedural Summary

The consolidated cases before us were tried on stipulated facts. Plaintiffs are the U.D. Registry, Inc. (UDR) and the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles (Apartment Association). The Apartment Association is a trade organization for members involved in the residential rental business. UDR gathers…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.