BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2310
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 25, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Bob Wieckowski, Chair
AB 2310 (Ridley-Thomas and Dickinson) - As Introduced:
February 21, 2014
As Proposed to be Amended
SUBJECT : UNLAWFUL DETAINER: NUISANCE: UNLAWFUL WEAPONS AND
AMMUNITION PILOT PROGRAM
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD THE PILOT PROGRAM FOR WEAPONS EVICTIONS,
WHICH AUTHORIZES CITY ATTORNEYS AND PROSECUTORS IN PARTICIPATING
CITIES TO BEGIN EVICTION PROCEEDINGS AGAINST A TENANT FOR
COMMITTING CERTAIN WEAPONS-RELATED NUISANCE VIOLATIONS, BE
RE-ESTABLISHED UNTIL JANUARY 1, 2019 AFTER AUTHORITY FOR THE
PROGRAM INADVERTENTLY SUNSET AT THE END OF LAST YEAR?
SYNOPSIS
This bill, sponsored by the Los Angeles City Attorney's office,
seeks to re-establish the Civil Code Section 3485 pilot program
that, until it sunset last year, authorized city attorneys in
participating jurisdictions to bring eviction proceedings
against tenants for committing nuisance violations involving
unlawful weapons and ammunition. Authority for the pilot
program was extended an additional four years by AB 530
(Krekorian), Ch. 244, Stats. 2009, but that authority sunset on
December 31, 2013 pursuant to AB 530 when no statute was
subsequently enacted to continue the program. According to
proponents, that was an unfortunate legislative oversight, and
this urgency bill is needed to restore the Section 3485 program
as soon as possible to ensure public safety as well as
uninterrupted study and evaluation of the program by the
California Research Bureau (CRB). The bill authorizes the
cities of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Sacramento-all active
participants in the pilot until last year-to continue in the
pilot program. As proposed to be amended, the bill also
incorporates CRB-recommended revisions to the data items
required to be reported to the CRB, and establishes a January 1,
2019 sunset date. Several apartment associations oppose the
bill unless amended to require the city to refund the fee paid
by a landlord in assigning the case to the city if a court finds
in favor of the tenant, or where the city fails to otherwise
AB 2310
Page 2
bring an eviction action. Opponents' objection is to provisions
of the pilot program codified in 2007 that this bill merely
seeks to reenact in the form those provisions existed up until
their inadvertent sunset at the end of 2013, and not to any new
provisions incorporated by this bill.
SUMMARY : Re-establishes a pilot program, which sunset last
year, that conditionally allows city attorneys and prosecutors
in participating cities to bring eviction proceedings against
tenants for committing nuisance violations involving unlawful
weapons and ammunition. Specifically, this bill :
1)Re-establishes the Civil Code Section 3485 pilot program for
weapons-related evictions that, until sunsetting on December
31, 2013, provided pilot authority to the city attorney or
prosecutor in participating jurisdictions to file an unlawful
detainer action in the name of the people against a tenant for
the illegal possession or sale of firearms or ammunition, as
specified, on the residential premises, or for using the
premises to further that illegal purpose.
2)Authorizes only the cities of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and
Sacramento to participate in the pilot program.
3)Establishes a January 1, 2019 sunset date for the pilot
program.
4)Revises specified information and data required to be reported
annually to the California Research Bureau (CRB), and requires
the CRB to submit a brief report evaluating the merits of the
pilot program to the Senate Judiciary and Assembly Judiciary
Committees by specified dates in 2016 and 2018.
5)Declares that this is an urgency statute to protect public
safety and makes findings that a special law is necessary to
limit application of the law to the jurisdictions identified
in this act.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that a tenant who maintains, commits or permits a
nuisance upon the premises or who uses the premises for an
unlawful purpose thereby terminates the lease, entitling the
landlord to restitution of the premises under unlawful
detainer. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161(4).)
AB 2310
Page 3
2)Specifies that a person who illegally possesses certain
firearms or ammunition on the premises, or who illegally
possesses or sells a controlled substance on the premises, or
who uses the premises to further either purpose, as defined,
shall be deemed to have committed a nuisance upon the premises
for the purpose of determining unlawful detainer against that
person. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161(4).)
3)Authorizes the city attorney or prosecutor in Los Angeles to
file, in the name of the people, an action for unlawful
detainer against a tenant for committing nuisance violations
involving the illegally possession or sale of a controlled
substance on the premises or using the premises to further
that purpose. (Civil Code Section 3486.)
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.
COMMENTS : This bill, sponsored by the Los Angeles City
Attorney's office, seeks to re-establish the Civil Code Section
3485 pilot program that, until it sunset last year, authorized
city attorneys in participating jurisdictions to bring eviction
proceedings against tenants for committing nuisance violations
involving unlawful weapons and ammunition. Authority for the
pilot program was extended an additional four years by AB 530
(Krekorian), Ch. 244, Stats. 2009, but that authority sunset on
December 31, 2013 pursuant to AB 530 when no statute was
subsequently enacted to continue the program. According to
proponents, that was an unfortunate legislative oversight, and
this urgency bill is needed to restore the Section 3485 program
as soon as possible to ensure public safety as well as
uninterrupted study and evaluation of the program.
Need for the Bill. According to the author, the pilot authority
provided to city attorneys and prosecutors under the Section
3485 program is an important tool that can be used to reduce gun
violence and protect public safety. The author states:
One way in which gun violence can be decreased is with
AB 2310, which would re-enact Civil Code Section 3485
an unlawful detainer program that sunsetted at the
beginning of this year. Civil Code Section 3485
provided that city attorneys in participating
jurisdictions could file unlawful detainer actions to
evicts nuisance tenants who have committed unlawful
AB 2310
Page 4
weapons or ammunitions crimes on the premises.
Property owners are frequently unaware that their
tenants have committed crimes on the premises. Section
3485 provides for notification by the city attorney to
the property owner advising of a weapon or ammunition
related crime committed on the premises and requiring
the property owner to evict the tenant. The tenant is
also notified, thereby decreasing the chances of
retaliation against the property owner. Section 3485
also allows a judge to order the partial eviction of
the tenant committing the crime and continued
occupancy by the remaining tenants.
At times, the property owner is afraid to evict the
tenant because of threats, gang affiliation or other
intimidating conduct. Section 3485 authorized city
attorneys to bring an unlawful detainer in such a
circumstance. Allowing the city attorney to bring the
action shields fearful or vulnerable owners from
retaliatory threats or violent reprisals by armed
tenants. Eviction of the tenant committing a weapon
or ammunition related violation also increases public
safety and the sense of community among law-abiding
tenants. For example, a known gang member who was the
owner of a local business was recently arrested for
possession of stolen, loaded firearm. Section 3485
would allow the city attorney to bring an eviction
action if the property owner is too fearful to do so.
Short summary of pilot program authority. The Section 3485
pilot program authorizes city attorneys and prosecutors in
participating jurisdictions, rather than the landlord or
property owner, to initiate eviction proceedings against tenants
for committing nuisance violations involving unlawful weapons
and ammunition. This special statutory authority is unusual
because traditionally only the landlord has authority to file an
unlawful detainer against a tenant for recovery of possession of
the property.
Under the pilot programs, a city attorney or city prosecutor may
file an unlawful detainer action against any person for creating
a nuisance on the property by using or allowing the premises to
be used for the illegal possession or sale of specified weapons
or ammunition. The city's action would be predicated on its
AB 2310
Page 5
belief that a specified weapons-related offense has occurred on
the subject real property based upon an arrest report or other
law enforcement report.
In any unlawful detainer action brought by the city prosecutor
or city attorney under the pilot programs, the public prosecutor
must first give 30 calendar days of written notice documenting
the alleged nuisance or illegal activity to the landlord and the
offending tenant. This notice is designed to give the landlord
the first opportunity to file an unlawful detainer action
against the offending tenant. The landlord may then either file
the action or assign the right to bring the unlawful detainer
action to the public prosecutor. If the landlord fails to file
an unlawful detainer action, or fails to prosecute such an
action diligently and in good faith, the city attorney or city
prosecutor may file the action and may join both the landlord
and the offending tenant as co-defendants.
Participation in the program also requires the city attorney to
report specified information to the California Research Bureau
about city attorney involvement, property owner response, court
processing, and tenant reaction. The law requires CRB, in turn,
to evaluate and report the merits of the program to the
Legislature.
As proposed to be amended, authority for weapons-based evictions
would continue as a pilot program with a January 1, 2019 sunset
date and limited to current participating cities that have been
actively reporting data. This bill seeks to re-enact Section
3485, which was entirely repealed on December 31, 2013, thereby
cutting off statutory authority for weapons-related evictions in
the participating cities. The author proposes to amend the bill
further, with respect to the following characteristics, as
follows:
Participating Jurisdictions: The authorized jurisdictions will
be the cities of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Sacramento.
Although the cities of San Diego and Oakland were authorized by
the law prior to its sunset at the end of 2013, to the
Committee's knowledge they have not exercised the authority nor
fulfilled the law's data reporting requirements. Consequently,
as proposed to be amended, this bill does not renew authority
for participation by San Diego or Oakland.
Reporting Requirements: To allow for better study and
AB 2310
Page 6
evaluation of the program, the author proposes a number of
amendments, recommended by CRB staff, to revise the data items
currently required to be reported. According to the CRB, these
revisions are intended to facilitate information reported at the
individual case level (i.e. for each instance a notice is
provided to the tenant) rather than at an aggregate level, and
to also make reporting less burdensome by requiring data to be
uniformly reported in a template designed by CRB.
Sunset Date: The author has proposed to amend the bill to
establish a sunset date of January 1, 2019 for all participating
jurisdictions, which allows the CRB three more years to collect
data and examine still unresolved research questions about the
program's effectiveness and implementation.
Reported data from the pilot program. According to the author,
"From 2010-2013, the Los Angeles City Attorney's office sent out
85 notification letters pursuant to Section 3485. Over 30% (26)
of the tenants vacated after receiving notice by the City
Attorney's office. In other cases, tenants vacated prior to
notice, default or stipulated judgments were entered, or some
other form of relief [was granted]. In only one case, did the
City Attorney actually have to file a case, highlighting the
efficacy of the procedures laid out in Section 3485."
According to the most recent CRB report to the Legislature which
analyzed only year 2011 data, the Los Angeles City Attorney's
office used its Section 3485 authority on 19 occasions to send
notices of intent to evict to landlords and nuisance tenants (a
rate of 0.5 notices per 100,000 residents). By contrast, in
that time period the Long Beach City Attorney sent 13 notices
for weapons-related evictions (a rate of 2.8 notices per 100,000
residents), and the Sacramento City Attorney sent only nine such
notices (a rate of 1.9 per 100,000 residents.) The percentage
of cases in which the property owner responded by filing an
unlawful detainer directly did not differ significantly between
the three participating cities, ranging from 39% to 44%. CRB
hypothesizes that property owners may see weapons issues as more
immediately dangerous (as compared to drug-related issues) and
thus acted directly to evict the tenant a greater proportion of
the time.
Among other things, the CRB report concludes that landlords
directly respond to the initial notice from the city attorney
(i.e., they file the action and proceed in good faith) at a
AB 2310
Page 7
higher rate for weapon-related actions (41.5%) as compared to
drug-related actions (16.5%). Also, a larger percentage of
weapon-related actions (42%) made it to court than drug-related
actions (21%) did. Drug-related UD actions (pursuant to Section
3485) had the highest rate of tenants vacating prior to being
noticed (19.1%), while weapons-related UD actions (pursuant to
Section 3486) had the higher rate of tenants who vacated after
being noticed (29.3%).
The entire CRB report, containing more detailed analysis of both
the weapons and drug-related eviction pilot programs, is
available at: http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/13/13-001.pdf .
Current/Previous Related Legislation. AB 1013 (Krekorian), Ch.
456, Stats. 2007, established the pilot program to allow city
attorneys and prosecutors to seek the eviction of tenants who
violate specified weapons and ammunitions offenses on the rental
property, with a sunset date of January 1, 2010.
AB 530 (Krekorian) Ch. 244, Stats. 2009, extended the sunset
date to January 1, 2014 for two pilot programs permitting city
attorneys or prosecutors in specified cities to bring an
unlawful detainer action against a tenant for unlawful
activities regarding both weapons and controlled substances.
This bill also added the city of Sacramento to the controlled
substances pilot program.
AB 2485 (Dickinson) of 2014 seeks to re-establish pilot
authority, which sunset last year, for the City of Sacramento to
continue to participate in the controlled substances-related
eviction pilot program. AB 2485 is currently being heard in
Assembly Judiciary Committee at the same time as this bill.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The bill is opposed by several
apartment associations, who now voice concerns with aspects of
the pilot program that were codified by AB 1013 (2007) and that
the author of this bill now simply seeks to restore, unchanged,
as they existed for five years preceding the January 1, 2014
sunset date. Among other things, these opponents are concerned
that the pilot program may unfairly require landlords "to pay
thousands of dollars to evict a tenant where the only evidence
is a police report, and where no other financial help is
provided to the landlord to file and proceed on the city's
behalf with an unlawful detainer action against an accused
tenant." These apartment associations oppose the bill unless
AB 2310
Page 8
amended to require the city to refund money paid by a landlord
to the city to evict a tenant if a court finds in favor of the
tenant, or where the city fails to otherwise bring an eviction
action. They state:
Under this bill, landlords have no control over the
decision to evict, the allegations, or the evidence.
Yet, they will be required to pay money to the city
when the city believes a tenant should be evicted.
What if the government has little evidence that a
crime was committed? What if the city does not use
its best efforts at trial to evict? As a safeguard,
to ensure that eviction actions by the city are
pursued in good faith and with best efforts, the city
attorney or prosecutor should refund the landlord's
money if a court finds insufficient evidence to evict.
The Committee notes that opponents' above reference to the
"landlord's money" paid to the city refers more specifically to
the "costs of investigation, discovery, and reasonable
attorney's fees, in an amount not to exceed $600" (Section
3486(a)(1)(E)) that are associated with assignment to the city
attorney of the landlord's right to bring an eviction action.
Accordingly, the assignment fee is meant to cover the time and
resources spent by the city preparing the case voluntarily
assigned to the city by the landlord, and those costs are
incurred by the city whether or not the city prevails in court
or a particular outcome results. Although assignment of the
case assuredly extinguishes the assigning party's right to bring
an action in the first place, opponents apparently believe it
does not extinguish any right to recover associated financial
costs in the case once it has concluded.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Los Angeles City Attorney (sponsor)
Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence
Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC)
Opposition
Apartment Association of California Southern Cities; East Bay
Rental
AB 2310
Page 9
Housing Association; Nor Cal Rental Property Association
(joint letter)
Analysis Prepared by : Anthony Lew / JUD. / (916) 319-2334