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