BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
AB 2310 (Ridley-Thomas and Dickinson)
As Amended March 28, 2014
Hearing Date: June 24, 2014
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: Yes
TH
SUBJECT
Unlawful Detainer: Nuisance: Unlawful Weapons and Ammunition
DESCRIPTION
This bill would reauthorize a lapsed pilot program allowing city
attorneys or city prosecutors in specified cities to evict a
tenant for unlawful activities relating to weapons or ammunition
on real property.
BACKGROUND
In 1988, the Legislature passed and Governor Deukmejian signed
AB 1384 (Havice, Ch. 613, Stats. 1998) to create a pilot project
within five former Los Angeles Municipal Court districts to
allow city attorneys and district attorneys to seek the eviction
of any person who is in violation of particular nuisance or
controlled substance laws. The pilot project became effective
on January 1, 1999, for a three-year trial period.
Participating cities were required to collect specified data on
their experiences under the pilot program and transmit that data
to Judicial Council. A required Judicial Council report, issued
on January 31, 2001, was unable to provide a full evaluation of
the merits of the pilot program due to insufficient data. (See
Unlawful Detainer Pilot Project Report (Feb. 2001)
(as of Jun. 14, 2014).)
AB 815 (Havice, Ch. 431, Stats. 2001) was enacted in 2001 to add
additional cities to the pilot program and to extend the program
for three additional years. The bill also modified the program
to expressly allow courts to order "partial evictions" to allow
(more)
AB 2310 (Ridley-Thomas and Dickinson)
Page 2 of ?
other tenants to maintain possession of a premises if the target
of an unlawful detainer eviction had permanently vacated the
premises. A required Judicial Council report, issued on April
22, 2004, could not fully evaluate the program again due to
insufficient data, but observed:
The ultimate evidence of the programs' success is the creation
of a safer environment and improved quality of life for
lawabiding tenants through the removal of offending tenants
from the community. . . . Beyond anecdotal evidence provided
by the pilot programs, however, no data are available to
assess the impacts of the programs on safety and quality of
life in this regard. (Unlawful Detainer Pilot Program Report
(Apr. 2004)
(as of Jun. 14, 2014).)
In 2004, AB 2523 (Frommer, Ch. 304, Stats. 2004) further
extended the unlawful detainer pilot program to January 1, 2010,
and augmented the reporting requirements for participating
jurisdictions. The bill also required two additional Judicial
Council reports to the Senate and Assembly Committees on
Judiciary summarizing the collected information and evaluating
the merits of the pilot program. A 2007 Judicial Council report
again could not fully evaluate the program, noting "[e]valuation
of the merits of the pilot program is necessarily limited by the
data received from the participating pilot cities." (Unlawful
Detainer Pilot Program Report (Apr. 2007)
(as of Jun. 14,
2014).)
In 2007, AB 1013 (Krekorian, Ch. 456, Stats. 2007) was enacted
to create a similar pilot program to allow city attorneys and
prosecutors to seek the eviction of tenants who violated
specified weapons and ammunitions offenses while in rental
property. This program, which was to sunset on January 1, 2010,
was extended four years along with the nuisance and controlled
substance pilot program by AB 530 (Krekorian, Ch. 244, Stats.
2009). AB 530 added the City of Sacramento to the controlled
substances pilot program, and exempted the City of Los Angeles
from the sunset date of the controlled substances program,
thereby extending the program indefinitely for that city. AB
530 made additional changes to the eviction notice and reporting
requirements of both pilot programs. A 2009 Judicial Council
report again could not fully evaluate the merits of the program,
AB 2310 (Ridley-Thomas and Dickinson)
Page 3 of ?
noting the failure of participating jurisdictions to
consistently report required data. (Unlawful Detainer Pilot
Program Report (Apr. 2009) (as of
Jun. 14, 2014).)
As part of the changes to the pilot programs' reporting
requirements, AB 530 directed participating jurisdictions to
report specific information to the California Research Bureau
(CRB) for analysis. The most recent report from CRB noted,
nonetheless, that "[c]urrent reporting requirements and
practices make it difficult to assess the overall merits of the
[unlawful detainer] pilot programs." (Lindsey,
City-Attorney-Sponsored Unlawful Detainer in California Part I:
Mandated Information 2013 Report to the Legislature (April 2013)
(as of June 14,
2014).)
This bill would reauthorize the now lapsed pilot program that
allows city prosecutors or city attorneys in the Cities of Los
Angeles, Long Beach, and Sacramento to file an unlawful detainer
action in the name of the people to abate nuisances caused by
illegal conduct involving unlawful weapons or ammunition. This
bill would require participating jurisdictions to report
specified information to the California Research Bureau relating
to the jurisdiction's use of the pilot program, and would
provide that the pilot program shall sunset on January 1, 2019.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law provides that a tenant who maintains, commits, or
permits a nuisance upon a premises or uses a premises for an
unlawful purpose is subject to eviction pursuant to an unlawful
detainer action. Under existing law, 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, is deemed to have committed a nuisance upon the
premises and is guilty of unlawful detainer. (Code Civ. Proc.
Sec. 1161(4).)
Existing law provides that anything which is injurious to
health, including, but not limited to, the illegal sale of
controlled substances, or is indecent or offensive to the
senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to
interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, or
AB 2310 (Ridley-Thomas and Dickinson)
Page 4 of ?
unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use, in the customary
manner, of any navigable lake, or river, bay, stream, canal, or
basin, or any public park, square, street, or highway, is a
nuisance. (Civ. Code Sec. 3479.)
Existing law provides that every building or place used by
members of a criminal street gang for the purpose of, among
other things, the commission of any offense involving dangerous
or deadly weapons, and every building or place wherein or upon
which that criminal conduct by gang members takes place, is a
nuisance which shall be enjoined, abated, and prevented, and for
which damages may be recovered, whether it is a public or
private nuisance. (Pen. Code Sec. 186.22a.)
This bill would reenact a pilot program authorizing a city
prosecutor or city attorney to file, in the name of the people,
an action for unlawful detainer against a tenant to abate a
nuisance caused by illegal conduct involving unlawful weapons or
ammunition on real property, as provided.
This bill would provide that such an unlawful detainer action
shall be based upon an arrest report or other report by a law
enforcement agency, reporting an offense committed on the
property and documented by the observations of a police officer.
This bill would state that prior to filing an unlawful detainer
action, the city prosecutor or city attorney shall give 30
calendar days' written notice to the owner, requiring the owner
to file an action for the removal of the person who is creating
the nuisance, and shall include sufficient documentation
establishing the nuisance. This bill would also require the
city prosecutor or city attorney to provide a specified written
notice to the tenant allegedly creating the nuisance 30 calendar
days prior to filing an unlawful detainer action.
This bill would provide that an owner shall, within 30 calendar
days of the mailing of the written notice, either provide the
city prosecutor or city attorney with all relevant information
pertaining to the unlawful detainer case, or provide a written
explanation setting forth any safety-related reasons for
noncompliance, and an assignment to the city prosecutor or city
attorney of the right to bring an unlawful detainer action
against the tenant. The assignment shall be on a form provided
by the city prosecutor or city attorney and may contain a
provision for costs of investigation, discovery, and reasonable
attorney's fees, in an amount not to exceed six hundred dollars
AB 2310 (Ridley-Thomas and Dickinson)
Page 5 of ?
($600).
This bill would provide that upon the failure of an owner to
file the unlawful detainer action, or to respond to the city
prosecutor or city attorney as required, or having filed an
action, if the owner fails to prosecute it diligently and in
good faith, the city prosecutor or city attorney may file and
prosecute the action, and join the owner as a defendant in the
action. This bill would also provide that if a jury or court
finds the defendant tenant guilty of unlawful detainer, the city
prosecutor or city attorney may be awarded costs, including the
costs of investigation and discovery and reasonable attorney's
fees, assessed against the defendant owner.
This bill would state that in an unlawful detainer proceeding, a
court may issue a partial eviction ordering the removal of any
person, including, but not limited to, members of the tenant's
household if the court finds that the person has created a
nuisance, as specified. Persons removed pursuant to this
provision may be permanently barred from returning to or
reentering any portion of the premises, and the court may
further order as an express condition of the tenancy that the
remaining tenants shall not give permission or invite the person
who has been removed to return to or reenter any portion of the
premises.
This bill would specify that the authority to bring an action
for unlawful detainer under this program shall only apply to the
City of Los Angeles, the City of Long Beach, and the City of
Sacramento.
This bill would require participating jurisdictions to transmit
specified information to the California Research Bureau
regarding their use of this program. This bill would require
the California Research Bureau to report to the Senate and
Assembly Committees on Judiciary on the use of this program by
participating jurisdictions, as specified.
This bill would provide that authority to bring an action for
unlawful detainer under this program shall sunset on January 1,
2019.
AB 2310 (Ridley-Thomas and Dickinson)
Page 6 of ?
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
The author writes:
This bill would reenact recently sunsetted provisions of
[Civil] [C]ode [Section] 3485 authorizing a city prosecutor or
city attorney in specified cities to file an action for
unlawful detainer to abate a nuisance caused by illegal
conduct involving . . . unlawful weapons or ammunition. . . .
The California Research Bureau has issued two reports on the
unlawful detainer pilot program (including drug based unlawful
detainers as detailed in Civil Code [S]ection 3486) [and]
found that a potential benefit is that evicting a nuisance
tenant from [a] community may decrease the number of times
residents call city police to the area and the costs
associated with answering those calls.
. . .
Part of the need for the bill is that property owners are
frequently unaware that their tenants have committed crimes on
the premises. [Before sunsetting in 2014,] Section 3485 of
the Civil Code provided for . . . notification by the city
attorney to the property owner advising of a weapon or
ammunition related crime committed on the premises and
require[ed] the property owner to evict the tenant. The
tenant is also notified, thereby decreasing the chances of
retaliation against the property owner. . . . Assembly Bill
2310 would reinstate the authority and use of partial
evictions as a valuable tool to make communities safer.
Criminals should not be allowed to paralyze neighborhoods and
communities.
2. Unlawful detainer process under the pilot program
Under this renewed pilot program, a city attorney or city
prosecutor would be authorized to file an unlawful detainer
action against a tenant for creating a nuisance on a property by
using or allowing the premises to be used for illegal conduct
involving unlawful weapons or ammunition. The city's action
would be predicated on its belief that a specified 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
AB 2310 (Ridley-Thomas and Dickinson)
Page 7 of ?
or city attorney under the pilot program, the public prosecutor
must first give 30-calendar days' 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.
If a defendant tenant is found guilty of unlawful detainer, an
eviction order is entered and the tenant's right to possession
is declared forfeited. However, the court hearing the unlawful
detainer action may issue a partial eviction ordering removal
only of the offending tenant and permitting other tenants who
have not violated the law to remain. Tenants who are evicted
from the property "may be permanently barred from returning to
or reentering any portion of the entire premises." In addition,
the court may order that the remaining tenants, as an express
condition of the tenancy, not give permission to or invite any
person who has been evicted to return to or reenter any portion
of the entire premises. This ability to obtain a partial
eviction order is considered a key provision of the pilot
program because it allows law-abiding tenants to not be evicted
for the deeds of co-tenants or of family members. Partial
evictions are seen as a more equitable and balanced response to
a nuisance problem. In its absence, a total eviction would
punish innocent tenants who are often family members, causing
disruption and upheaval especially when there are young children
involved, or when grandparents or relatives have become
caretaker parents of others.
3. Oversight and control
It is undisputed that renewing the unlawful detainer pilot
program would offer participating jurisdictions a potentially
valuable public safety tool for combatting illegal firearms and
firearm related activity. As the City of Sacramento notes:
The proliferation of weapons, particularly in residential
areas, is of major concern to the City of Sacramento, and
cities throughout the state, because of its devastating and
destructive impacts on neighborhoods. Illegal drug activity
AB 2310 (Ridley-Thomas and Dickinson)
Page 8 of ?
is inextricably linked with gang violence as dealers protect
their turf with firearms and landlords are often afraid to
evict tenants because of credible threats of retaliation by
gang members. . . . Illegal gun activity is also linked to
drug dealing and abuse causing neighborhood blight as
law-abiding residents, fearful for their safety, abandon their
neighborhood. This domino effect leads to more [quality] of
life crimes as criminals continue to expand their turf. . . .
By allowing City Attorneys to evict tenants engaged in
gun-related crimes AB 2310 will serve to protect other tenants
living in the same apartment complex or residential home.
City Attorneys will step into the shoes of landlords unable or
unwilling to evict tenants with chronic histories of illegal
gun activity that drains the resources of our police
department.
However, as with most public safety programs, careful attention
must be paid to ensure that this law enforcement tool does not
impermissibly interfere with the inalienable right of all
Californians to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to acquire,
possess, and protect property, and to pursue and obtain safety,
happiness, and privacy. (Cal. Const. art. I, Sec. 1.)
A. Sufficient cause for bringing an unlawful detainer action
There are certain aspects of this pilot program that may place
too much emphasis on the maintenance of order at the expense
of liberty. First, it should be noted that a "pre" eviction
notice may be sent to a tenant and landlord based on nothing
more than a "report by a law enforcement agency" purportedly
substantiating the unlawful activity that forms the basis of a
prospective unlawful detainer action. This means that an
unlawful detainer action based on unlawful activity may be
initiated even when the subject tenant has never been
arrested, indicted, or convicted of a crime. In many
instances a law enforcement report may provide sufficient
evidence to reasonably conclude, in advance of a trial on the
merits, that a tenant did indeed commit some unlawful act
involving firearms. However, it is ultimately for a reviewing
court and a jury to determine whether a tenant is guilty of
unlawful detainer.
Unfortunately, given the available data, experience under this
AB 2310 (Ridley-Thomas and Dickinson)
Page 9 of ?
pilot program's now-lapsed predecessor indicates that a
majority of tenants who receive notice that they will be
subject to an unlawful detainer action never make it to a
trial on the merits. Reports from participating jurisdictions
under the lapsed program indicate that many tenants leave the
property shortly after receiving the required notice. This
means that reviewing courts are frequently unable to weigh the
merits of a prosecutor or city attorney's rationale for
initiating an unlawful detainer action under this program.
Certainly, some tenants may decide to vacate a property
because they have engaged in unlawful activity and realize
eviction is unavoidable, but others may simply fear unwanted
government scrutiny for other reasons, such as a concern that
fighting an unlawful detainer action or raising objections
could lead to the deportation of an undocumented family
member.
Some measure of comfort that this program could not be used to
remove people in the absence of bona fide evidence of illegal
activity may be achieved if this bill specified that an action
could only be initiated on the basis of an arrest report.
Unlike an "other report by a law enforcement agency," an
arrest report, and its underlying arrest, must be based on
probable cause. In People v. Scott (2011) 52 Cal.4th 452,
474, the California Supreme Court characterized probable cause
as follows:
Probable cause exists when the facts known to the arresting
officer would persuade someone of 'reasonable caution' that
the person to be arrested has committed a crime. (Dunaway
v. New York (1979) 442 U.S. 200, 208.) '[P]robable cause
is a fluid concept-turning on the assessment of
probabilities in particular factual contexts . . . .'
(Illinois v. Gates (1983) 462 U.S. 213, 232.) It is
incapable of precise definition. (Maryland v. Pringle
(2003) 540 U.S. 366, 371.) 'The substance of all the
definitions of probable cause is a reasonable ground for
belief of guilt,' and that belief must be 'particularized
with respect to the person to be ? seized.' (People v.
Celis (2004) 33 Cal.4th 667, 673.)
Requiring law enforcement to articulate probable cause for
arrest for unlawful firearms activities before initiating an
action under this pilot program would help ensure that a
tenant's rights are protected even in the absence of review by
a court. To address this concern, the author has offered the
following amendment that would require an unlawful detainer
AB 2310 (Ridley-Thomas and Dickinson)
Page 10 of ?
action initiated under this program to be based on an arrest
report:
Author's Amendment :
On page 3, lines 9 and 10, strike: "or other report"
B. Balance of harms
Second, this pilot program may, in certain instances, actually
cause more harm than good when forcing tenants to leave their
homes and communities. By its terms, any unlawful activity
involving firearms constitutes a nuisance, whether or not such
unlawful activity is destructive to the maintenance of safe,
ordered communities. Consequently, a tenant who has committed
a technical violation of California's firearms laws may be at
risk of eviction even when the violation does not overtly
threaten public safety. One individual, writing in
opposition, states:
Gun owners that are already tasked with deciphering
California's confusing regulatory scheme may find
themselves facing not only criminal liability, but removal
from their residence. If a gun owner is in possession of a
firearm that is mistaken for an unlawful firearm by law
enforcement, they may be subject to an unlawful detainer
action. . . . AB 2310 should be opposed because it fails to
focus on true criminal conduct, and instead places
law-abiding gun owners in jeopardy of losing their
residence for unwitting violations of virtually any of the
thousands of state [and] local . . . firearm regulations
that gun owners must navigate.
Tenants who commit technical violations of the law but pose no
threat to the health or safety of their community may
nonetheless find themselves facing eviction at the behest of a
city attorney or prosecutor. In such cases, the upheaval
caused by having to move may significantly outweigh any harm
to the community caused by the firearms violation. To
mitigate the risk that this program may disproportionately
harm certain offenders, the Committee may wish to consider the
following amendment that would require participating
jurisdictions to consider whether an unlawful detainer action
would be unduly burdensome for a particular tenant:
Suggested Amendment :
AB 2310 (Ridley-Thomas and Dickinson)
Page 11 of ?
On page 6, between lines 18 and 19, insert: "A city
prosecutor or city attorney may not file an unlawful
detainer against any person under this section if the harm
such an action would cause to a person clearly outweighs
the benefits to the community."
4. Utility and impact of pilot program
As noted above, past reports on this and other unlawful detainer
pilot programs have been unable to assess the overall merits of
such programs due to a lack of sufficient data. Based on the
data that is available, the California Research Bureau (CRB)
made the following findings in its most recent report:
few unlawful detainer actions were actually filed in court by
city attorneys under previous unlawful detainer pilot
programs;
overall, 17.9 percent of tenants who were sent an unlawful
detainer notice vacated prior to the notice being served.
Most of these tenants had drug-related unlawful detainer
notices served;
twenty-six percent moved after the unlawful detainer notices
were served. Most of these tenants had weapon-related
unlawful detainer notices served; and
little information about the tenants themselves is reported,
or, if it is, is verifiable. (Lindsey,
City-Attorney-Sponsored Unlawful Detainer in California Part
I: Mandated Information 2013 Report to the Legislature (April
2013) (as of
June 14, 2014).)
CRB's report goes on to state that missing from a participating
jurisdiction's reporting mandate "is reference to biographic
information about tenants and property owners, neighborhood
crime information, and information about tenants' criminal
activities after they leave. Further, while mandated, data
about where tenants live after they vacate are unavailable or
not verifiable." This lack of demographic information is
troubling because it precludes the Legislature from assessing
the broader impacts of unlawful detainer pilot programs.
Information received by the Committee indicates that, for at
least some jurisdictions, city attorney or city prosecutor
initiated eviction actions tend to cluster in specific districts
and neighborhoods. Given the demographic makeup of California
cities, this trend raises the possibility that these pilot
programs may be having a disparate impact on certain racial or
AB 2310 (Ridley-Thomas and Dickinson)
Page 12 of ?
ethnic communities, or on certain socio-economic classes. In
order to illuminate whether these programs are having a
disparate impact on certain communities, the author has offered
the following addition to the reporting mandate that would
require participating jurisdictions to gather data on the race
and ethnicity of tenants evicted under the pilot program:
Author's Amendment :
On page 8, between lines 6 and 7, insert: "(ii) The racial or
ethnic identity of the tenant against whom the unlawful
detainer action is sought."
On page 8, line 7, strike "(ii)" and insert "(iii)"
Also troubling is the fact that very little information is
gathered regarding where tenants who either voluntarily leave or
are evicted through this program relocate to, and whether they
continue to engage in unlawful activities at their new place of
residence. Unlike arrest and prosecution for a crime, the
unlawful detainer pilot program does not directly address the
alleged illegal activity creating the nuisance. By forcing
offenders to simply relocate, this program may actually shift
illegal activity and the public safety burden that comes with it
to neighboring communities. As a matter of public policy,
California has opposed the "dumping" of public health and safety
problems onto other communities out of an effort by one
jurisdiction to save money and resources, including a recent
alleged effort by the State of Nevada to send "indigent mentally
ill people [into] California cities and counties by issuing
patients bus tickets out of town without making proper
arrangements for their care." (See Hubert and Reese, San
Francisco Sues Nevada Over 'Patient Dumping' (Sep. 10, 2014)
(as of Jun. 15, 2014).) In order to determine
whether this pilot program simply relocates public safety
burdens from one community to another, the author offers the
following amendments that would require participating
jurisdictions to gather data about a tenant's unlawful
activities post-eviction, and would condition the authority to
file unlawful detainer actions on a participating jurisdiction's
good faith effort to provide all required data to the CRB:
Author's Amendments :
On page 9, between lines 30 and 31, insert: "(L) Whether the
AB 2310 (Ridley-Thomas and Dickinson)
Page 13 of ?
tenants continued to engage in unlawful activity at their new
place of residence, to the extent known."
On page 10, between lines 3 and 4, insert: "(h) No
participating jurisdiction shall be permitted to file, in the
name of the people, an action for unlawful detainer under this
section if that jurisdiction fails to make a good faith effort
to collect and timely report all information required under
subdivision (g) to the California Research Bureau."
On page 10, line 4, strike "(h)" and insert "(i)"
5. Impact to landlords
Under this pilot program, a landlord is given the option to file
an unlawful detainer action or assign the right to bring the
action to a public prosecutor upon receiving notice from the
prosecutor that their tenant is creating a nuisance on a
property through illegal conduct involving unlawful weapons or
ammunition. If the landlord opts to assign the action to a
public prosecutor, this bill would authorize a participating
jurisdiction to assess a fee not to exceed $600 to cover the
costs of investigation, discovery, and reasonable attorney's
fees. A coalition of apartment associations opposes this bill
because, among other things, the bill requires landlords to pay
the assignment fee even if the public prosecutor takes no
action. The coalition states:
This bill unfairly requires landlords to either pay for an
attorney to evict a tenant the city wants evicted, or pay the
city attorney or city prosecutor $600 to evict the tenant. If
a landlord chooses to pay the city, the bill does not require
the city to actually take action against the targeted tenant.
Moreover, the bill provides no assurances or mechanisms for
landlords to recoup those funds in the event the city chooses
not to evict or fails to take action against the tenant.
Staff notes that while it is the landlord's choice to assign an
unlawful detainer action initiated at a prosecutor's request to
the prosecutor, this choice may be illusory since a landlord who
fails to file an unlawful detainer action, or fails to prosecute
such an action diligently and in good faith, may be joined by
the city attorney or city prosecutor with the offending tenant
as co-defendants. Additionally, should the prosecutor prevail
on an action where the landlord has been joined as a defendant,
this bill would authorize a court to award the prosecutor costs,
including the costs of investigation and discovery and
AB 2310 (Ridley-Thomas and Dickinson)
Page 14 of ?
reasonable attorney's fees. In order to address the coalition's
concerns, the author offers the following amendment that would
preclude assessment of an assignment fee unless the
participating jurisdiction accepted the assignment and filed an
unlawful detainer action:
Author's Amendment :
On page 5, line 23 following "($600)." insert: "An owner shall
only be required to pay the costs or fees upon acceptance of
the assignment and the filing of the action for unlawful
detainer by the city prosecutor or city attorney."
6. Amendment to add the City of Oakland
The author has indicated that the City of Oakland was
unintentionally omitted from the list of jurisdictions
authorized to participate in this pilot program. To correct
that deficiency, the author offers the following amendment to
give the City of Oakland authority to participate in the
program:
Author's Amendment :
On page 7, between lines 35 and 36, insert: (3) In the
County of Alameda, any court with jurisdiction over unlawful
detainer cases involving real property situated in the City of
Oakland.
Support : Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles; City of
Oakland; City of Sacramento; Santa Barbara Rental Property
Association
Opposition : Apartment Association, Southern California Cities;
East Bay Rental Housing Association; Nor Cal Rental Property
Association
HISTORY
Source : Los Angeles City Attorney
Related Pending Legislation : AB 2485 (Dickinson and
Ridley-Thomas) would reauthorize a lapsed pilot program allowing
city attorneys or prosecutors in specified cities to bring an
unlawful detainer action in the name of the people against a
AB 2310 (Ridley-Thomas and Dickinson)
Page 15 of ?
tenant of rental housing for illegal conduct involving a
controlled substance on real property. This bill is set for
hearing in the Senate Committee on Judiciary.
Prior Legislation :
AB 530 (Krekorian, Ch. 244, Stats. 2009) See Background.
AB 1013 (Krekorian, Ch. 456, Stats. 2007) See Background.
AB 2523 (Frommer, Ch. 304, Stats. 2004) See Background.
AB 815 (Havice, Ch. 431, Stats. 2001) See Background.
AB 1384 (Havice, Ch. 613, Stats. 1998) See Background.
Prior Vote :
Assembly Floor (Ayes 70, Noes 1)
Assembly Committee on Appropriations (Ayes 16, Noes 0)
Assembly Committee on Judiciary (Ayes 10, Noes 0)
**************