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