Bullard

Bullard v. San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization Board

Good Law
106 Cal. App. 4th 488·130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 819·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 248·2003 Daily Journal DAR 1973·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1533
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 21, 2003A098336California1,188 words

Opinion

Opinion

Parrilli, J.

The Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Costa-Hawkins Act) (Civ. Code, § 1954.50 et seq.) preempts local rent control by permitting landlords to set the initial rent for vacant units, but expressly preserves local authority to “regulate or monitor the grounds for eviction.” (Civ. Code, § 1954.53, subd. (e); DeZerega v. Meggs (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 28, 40-41 [ 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 366 ].) Under San Francisco’s rent control ordinance, a landlord who evicts a tenant in order to move into the tenant’s unit must offer the tenant another unit, if one is vacant. The ordinance also regulates the rent a landlord may charge for the replacement unit. Is this rent restriction permissible under the Costa-Hawkins Act’s provision for local eviction control? We conclude it is not. The “grounds for eviction” contemplated by Civil Code section 1954.53, subdivision (e) are distinct from such subsequent rent regulation.

James Bullard and Emily Wilson (Landlords) appeal from an order denying their petition for a writ of administrative mandamus. Landlords challenged a ruling by the San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization Board (the Rent Board) denying their appeal from a hearing officer’s…

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.