BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2003
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 5, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mark Stone, Chair
AB 2003
(Lackey) - As Amended March 28, 2016
SUBJECT: UNLAWFUL DETAINER PROCEEDINGS
KEY ISSUES:
1)should a tenant in an unlawful detainer action, as a condition
of asserting breach of warranty of habitability as an
affirmative defense, be required to meet heightened pleading
requirements that do not apply to other types of defendantS
and that require additional facts not needed to establish the
defense?
2)SHOULD THE PARTIES IN AN UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION BE BARRED
FROM REQUESTING A CHANGE IN COURT LOCATION, FOR ANY REASON,
WHENEVER THE COURT WHERE THE TRIAL IS SET TO OCCUR IS THE
COURT NEAREST TO THE REAL PROPERTY FROM WHICH THE TENANT IS
BEING EVICTED?
3)SHOULD A LANDLORD BE ALLOWED TO ENTER A TENANT'S UNIT,
POTENTIALLY INVADING THE TENANT'S PRIVACY, IF THE LANDLORD
WISHES TO INSPECT THE PREMISES FOR HABITABILITY VIOLATIONS,
EVEN WHEN NO SUCH VIOLATIONS ARE KNOWN OR SUSPECTED TO EXIST?
AB 2003
Page 2
SYNOPSIS
This bill seeks to establish heightened pleading requirements
for tenants in unlawful detainer (UD) cases who seek to assert
the breach of warranty of habitability as an affirmative
defense. Specifically, the bill requires the tenant, as a
condition of asserting the affirmative defense, to allege
whether he or she lodged a complaint regarding the
uninhabitability of the premises before the filing of the
action; if so, whether the landlord or landlord's agent also was
notified about the alleged problem; and finally, to identify the
particular city or county department that the complaint was
lodged with, if any. These requirements are necessary, contend
the property owners, landlords, and realtors that support the
bill, because tenants and their attorneys frequently raise the
warranty of habitability defense at the time of the answer, not
because a habitability problem actually exists, but as a way to
stall the eviction proceedings and thereby cause unnecessary
delay to what is supposed to be a summary process.
Proponents also contend that a motion to change venue in an
unlawful detainer case is almost invariably done with the sole
purpose of delaying the trial, and they assert that the proper
venue for the trial should always be in the court location
closest to the rental property that is the subject of the
action. Thus, the bill prohibits either party in a UD action
from requesting a change of venue if the lawsuit is set to be
heard at the courthouse which is closest to the property, as
long as that court location can handle a jury trial and is
otherwise a proper location, as specified. Finally, the bill
specifically authorizes a landlord to enter a tenant's unit to
comply with Civil Code Section 1941.1-that is, to inspect for
potential habitability concerns and fix them, if necessary.
Landlords argue that current law does not guarantee them entry
into their tenants' units to carry out their obligations to
ensure the premises are habitable at all times.
AB 2003
Page 3
The bill is strongly opposed by the Western Center on Law and
Poverty and other tenant advocates, who contend that the
heightened pleading standards proposed by this bill, among other
things: (1) unfairly target tenants in UD actions without
applying to defendants in any other types of civil case or
creating any countervailing burden on landlords; (2) appear to
require tenants to provide landlords with binding responses in
their answer that is normally the subject of discovery in a
case-effectively reducing even further the short 5-day period
for discovery allowed in UD cases; and (3) demand information
unnecessary to establish the habitability defense, thus
discouraging tenants from legitimately asserting the defense.
Opponents note that existing law and rules of professional
conduct already prohibit a defendant or his or her attorney from
asserting unwarranted defenses. These opponents also object to
the proposed changes related to landlord entry and venue change,
calling them unnecessary and contrary to existing laws
protecting the privacy of tenants and preserving court
discretion to hear motions for allowing venue change. With
respect to the proposed entry rule, they contend this bill would
arguably allow a landlord to enter a tenant's unit at any time
under the premise of inspecting for habitability violations,
whether or not such violations are known or even suspected to
exist.
SUMMARY: Increases pleading requirements for tenants pleading
uninhabitability as an affirmative defense against eviction, and
makes various other changes to landlord-tenant law.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Provides that if the defendant asserts an affirmative defense
of breach of the implied warranty of habitability, the
defendant shall indicate on the appropriate Judicial Council
answer form if the defendant has lodged a complaint or
complaints regarding the uninhabitability of the premises
AB 2003
Page 4
before the filing of the action.
2)Provides that if the defendant has lodged a complaint or
complaints regarding the uninhabitability of the premises
before the filing of the action, the defendant shall include
on the appropriate Judicial Council answer form the following
information:
a) Whether the complaint or complaints were lodged with the
plaintiff or the plaintiff's agent in charge of managing
the premises.
b) Whether the complaint or complaints were lodged with a
city or county department, and, if so, which city or county
department.
3)Requires the Judicial Council, on or before July 1, 2017, to
revise the "Answer-Unlawful Detainer" form to include spaces
to input the additional information required by this bill.
4)Prohibits a plaintiff or a defendant in an unlawful detainer
proceeding from requesting a change in court location if that
location is already the one nearest to where the real property
that is the subject of the action is situated. This provision
only applies if the court location described above has been
designated as a proper court location for the trial and allows
for a jury trial.
5)Authorizes the landlord to enter the tenant's dwelling unit in
order to ensure compliance with Civil Code Section 1941.1
(describing standard characteristics of uninhabitability).
AB 2003
Page 5
EXISTING LAW:
1)Authorizes a landlord to enter the tenant's dwelling unit only
in the following cases: (a) in case of emergency; (b) when the
tenant has abandoned or surrendered the premises; (c) pursuant
to court order; (d) to make necessary or agreed repairs,
decorations, alterations or improvements, or supply necessary
or agreed services; (e) to exhibit the dwelling unit to
prospective or actual purchasers, mortgagees, tenants,
workers, or contractors; and (f) to make an inspection, upon
the tenant's request, to allow the tenant to remedy identified
deficiencies in order to avoid deductions from the security
deposit after vacating the premises. (Civil Code Section
1954(a).)
2)Provides that, except in cases of emergency or when the tenant
has abandoned or surrendered the premises, entry may not be
made during other than normal business hours unless the tenant
consents to an entry during other than normal business hours
at the time of entry. (Civil Code Section 1954(b).)
3)Prohibits the landlord from abusing the right of access or
using it to harass the tenant. (Civil Code Section 1954(c).)
4)Requires the landlord to give the tenant reasonable notice in
writing of his or her intent to enter the unit and to enter
only during normal business hours, except as provided. Allows
oral agreement instead, in some cases, if the purpose of entry
is to exhibit the unit to prospective or actual purchasers, or
to make agreed repairs or supply agreed services. (Civil Code
Section 1954(d).)
5)Provides that, with respect to an unlawful detainer trial, the
proper court for the trial is the superior court in the county
AB 2003
Page 6
where the real property that is the subject of the action, or
some part thereof, is situated. Otherwise provides that any
location of the court designated as the proper court is a
proper location for the trial, and that the court may specify
by local rule the nearest or most accessible court location
where the court tries that type of case. (Code of Civil
Procedure Section 392.)
6)Allows the court, upon a motion, to change the place of trial
in the following cases: (a) when the court designated in the
complaint is not the proper court; (b) when there is reason to
believe that an impartial trial cannot be had therein; (c)
when the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice
would be promoted by the change; (d) when from any cause there
is no judge of the court qualified to act; (e) in divorce
cases, under specified circumstances. (Code of Civil
Procedure Section 397.)
7)Permits a defendant to file a general written denial in a case
in which the demand or value of the property in controversy
does not exceed $1000. (Code of Civil Procedure Section
431.40(a).)
8)Requires the defendant to deny specific paragraphs or parts of
the complaint, either positively or on information and belief,
in a case in which the demand or value of the property in
controversy exceeds $1000. (Code of Civil Procedure Section
431.30(d).)
9)Requires the defendant in an unlawful detainer case to file
the answer within five days after service of the summons,
unless time to answer is otherwise extended for good cause
shown. (Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1167 and 1167.3.)
AB 2003
Page 7
10)Provides that the breach of any warranty of habitability
(implied or express) is a defense to an unlawful detainer
action filed to recover possession or residential premises
based on nonpayment of rent. (Green v. Superior Court (1974)
10 Cal. 3d 616.)
11)Provides that in an unlawful detainer proceeding in which the
tenant has raised as an affirmative defense a breach of the
landlord's obligations under Civil Code Section 1941 or of any
warranty of habitability, the court shall determine whether a
substantial breach of these obligations has occurred. (Code
of Civil Procedure Section 1174.2.)
FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.
COMMENTS: Despite the fact that unlawful detainer (UD) is
already prioritized by the courts and handled as an expedited
summary proceeding, according to the author many property owners
find that the time it takes to resolve UD cases going to trial
is still too long, and from their perspective the process could
be made more efficient. In an attempt to further this goal,
this bill first seeks to establish heightened pleading
requirements for tenants in unlawful detainer cases who seek to
assert the breach of warranty of habitability as an affirmative
defense. Secondly, this bill would prohibit either party in a
UD action from requesting a change of venue if the lawsuit is
already set to be heard at the closest courthouse to the rental
property at issue. Finally, this bill would specifically
authorize a landlord to enter a tenant's unit to comply with
Civil Code Section 1941.1 and ensure habitability-that is, to
inspect for potential habitability problems that may or may not
have developed yet. According to the author:
[This bill] update[s] the unlawful detainer (UD) answer
form to ensure important case information is shared among
AB 2003
Page 8
parties at an earlier time in the process. One specific
area of concern, which this bill addresses, is the delay
that occurs when a warranty of habitability defense is
raised. Under current law, prior to trial in a UD action,
defendants (tenants) are not required to provide any
information to the plaintiff (property owner) about the
habitability condition that may make their dwelling unit
uninhabitable. Without prior notice the plaintiff cannot
assess the extent of the damage or unhealthy condition, or
begin to remedy the condition if one exists. More often
than not, however, the warranty of habitability defense is
raised, not because a habitability condition actually
exists, but instead as a way to stall the UD proceedings.
Summary of law requiring tenants to answer the complaint and
plead affirmative defenses within five days. When a residential
tenancy has been properly terminated for failure to pay rent,
but the tenant remains in possession of the premises even after
being served with notice to pay or quit, the landlord most
commonly initiates an unlawful detainer action in order to
regain possession of the property. An unlawful detainer is
considered a "summary remedy," insofar as times to plead and set
actions are shorter than in other civil trials so that the owner
may regain possession with minimal delay.
After the landlord-plaintiff serves an unlawful detainer summons
and complaint, the tenant only has a short window of five days,
Saturdays and Sundays included, to file an answer to the
complaint or risk suffering a default judgment. (CCP Section
1167.3.) The current Answer to Unlawful Detainer form (UD-105,
rev. January 1, 2014) by the Judicial Council permits the tenant
to deny statements in the complaint in whole or in part, and
also permits the tenant to assert one or more of several
possible affirmative defenses, including a defense based on the
landlord's alleged breach of the implied warranty of
habitability. A parenthetical note that precedes the list of
defenses states the following: "For each box checked, you [the
AB 2003
Page 9
tenant] must state brief facts to support it in (the space
provided) at the top of page 2." The tenant is provided with
enough space to write a short paragraph and instructed that he
or she may continue the statement in a separate attachment (Form
MC-025).
Under longstanding current law, a tenant may legitimately assert
breach of the warranty of habitability as an affirmative defense
to an unlawful detainer complaint. (Green v. Superior Court
(1974) 10 Cal.3d 616.) In Green, the California Supreme Court
held that a warranty of habitability is implied by law in every
residential lease in the state, and that the breach of such a
warranty may be raised as a defense to unlawful detainer,
including in nonpayment of rent cases. (Green v. Superior Court
(1974) 10 Cal.3d 616.) The Court explained "Once we recognize
that the tenant's obligation to pay rent and the landlord's
warranty of habitability are mutually dependent, it becomes
clear that the landlord's breach of such warranty may be
directly relevant to the issue of possession. If the tenant can
prove such a breach by the landlord, he may demonstrate that his
nonpayment of rent was justified and that no rent is in fact
'due and owing' to the landlord. Under such circumstances, of
course, the landlord would not be entitled to possession of the
premises." (Id. at 637.)
This bill requires heightened pleading in order to assert the
affirmative defense of breach of warranty of habitability.
According to the author, landlords and property owners are
concerned about the delay that occurs when a warranty of
habitability defense is raised by the tenant. Noting that
existing law does not require tenants, prior to trial, to
provide information to their landlord about habitability
conditions, the author contends: "Without prior notice the
plaintiff cannot assess the extent of the damage or unhealthy
condition, or begin to remedy the condition if one exists. More
often than not, however, the warranty of habitability defense is
raised, not because a habitability condition actually exists,
AB 2003
Page 10
but instead as a way to stall the UD proceedings." Proponents
further contend that because California law prohibits landlords
from entering rental units to perform inspections without the
tenant's consent, the landlord will not typically be apprised of
substandard conditions unless the tenant brings it to the
landlord's attention.
To address these perceived problems, this bill would require any
tenant asserting breach of the warranty of habitability as an
affirmative defense to allege additional facts in his or her
Answer demonstrating the following: (1) Whether the tenant has
lodged a complaint or complaints regarding the uninhabitability
of the premises before the filing of the action; (2) If yes to
(1), then whether the complaint or complaints were lodged with
the plaintiff or the plaintiff's agent in charge of managing the
premises; and (3) If yes to (1), whether the complaint or
complaints were lodged with a city or county department, and, if
so, which city or county department. As such, it appears that
one objective of this bill is to require tenants to provide
notice of habitability problems-including important discoverable
information-in their initial answer pleading if they wish to
assert breach of the warranty of habitability as an affirmative
defense. The author contends requiring this information to be
plead will "allow landlords to work directly with the tenant to
correct these issues so that an unlawful detainer lawsuit is not
necessary." In discussion with Committee staff, representatives
of apartment associations suggested that such notice will
provide the landlord an opportunity to correct habitability
problems, which in turn may potentially satisfy the parties and
ultimately save both sides time and litigation costs from not
having to go through with the trial (assuming the landlord
voluntarily seeks dismissal of the UD action.)
The bill is opposed by tenant advocates, including Western
Center on Law & Poverty, who contend that the bill unfairly
imposes a heightened pleading standard on tenants in UD actions
without creating any countervailing burden on landlords. They
AB 2003
Page 11
note that, under the bill, landlords are not required to state
with particularity in the complaint how they have, for example,
met their obligations under the warranty of habitability to
maintain their rental properties in a habitable condition
throughout the term of the lease. (See Peterson v. Superior
Court (1995) 10 Cal. 4th 1185, 1204.) According to these
opponents:
Affirmative defenses are alleged by "aver[ring] the
ultimate facts which constitute the . . . defense[.]"
(citing FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.
App. 3d 367, 382. The existing Judicial Council form
satisfies these requirements by providing that a tenant
"must state brief facts to support" any affirmative
defenses that he or she pleads. Yet AB 2003 would require
the tenant to state information beyond pleading the
ultimate facts which comprise the essential elements of a
defense. We are not aware of any other statutory provision
that would require a defendant to plead an affirmative
defense with such particularity.
In addition, opponents contend that this bill appears to require
tenants to provide landlords with information in the Answer that
is normally the subject of discovery in a case-responses that
are likely admissible and potentially binding--without any
countervailing requirement of landlords. The effect,
unfortunately, is reducing even further the 5-day period for
discovery allowed in UD cases. The opponents explain:
Such a requirement conflates the respective purposes of the
pleadings stage and the discovery stage of litigation.
Moreover, UD actions are summary proceedings in which
responses to discovery must be provided within five days'
time, with the risk of sanctions if a party fails to timely
respond. No policy consideration justifies shortening the
time for discovery below this five-day period, particularly
AB 2003
Page 12
when nearly all tenants are self-represented.
Requiring notice as an element of defense appears to contradict
existing law. Tenant advocates who oppose the bill contend that
tenants in eviction cases, the majority of whom are
self-represented, could easily misunderstand the proposed
pleading requirements in this bill as creating a notice
requirement, thereby "undermining the efficacy of the warranty
in ensuring that all California tenants have habitable
dwellings." The additional information, although not needed as
an element of the affirmative defense, also may have the
consequence of discouraging unrepresented tenants from even
completing the Answer-thus leading to more default evictions
even if a legitimate affirmative defense may have been
appropriate.
Contrary to opponents' concern that the requiring additional
information on the Answer form will confuse self-represented
tenants, the author states: "[T]he information required by AB
2003 for the uninhabitability defense should not be
characterized as confusing. If anything, it will help clarify
the current UD-105 form which is currently not user-friendly for
those inexperienced with the judicial system. . . [W]ith the
additional questions that AB 2003 would add to this section of
the UD-105 form, it will become clearer what this box is
requesting and what is required to assert an uninhabitability
defense in a UD case."
The Committee notes, however, that the informational items
proposed to be added to the Answer under the current version of
the bill (or, for that matter, the previous version of the bill)
do not reflect what is required to assert the affirmative
defense of breach of habitability. On the contrary, existing
law makes it clear that a tenant is not required to give prior
notice of substandard conditions or give the landlord time to
make repairs in order to make the affirmative defense, for once
AB 2003
Page 13
the premises are inhabitable, the obligation to pay rent ceases.
(Knight v. Hallsthammar (1981) 29 Cal. 3d 46, 54-55.) Notice
is not an element of the defense under existing law, which is
illustrated clearly by the Judicial Council jury instructions on
the defense (CACI 4320, Affirmative Defense-Implied Warranty of
Habitability.) It is even arguable in such cases that notice is
pleaded improperly as it is an immaterial allegation under CCP
Section 431.10 (b) and would likely be subject to a motion to
strike under CCP Section 436(a).
There are other important policy reasons why giving prior notice
to the landlord has historically not been required under
California law. The courts, for example, have taken notice of
the "unequal bargaining power" between landlords and tenants.
(See e.g. Green v Superior Court, supra at 625 and Knight v.
Hallshtammar, supra at 54.) Given this unequal power, tenants
might fear that if they report problems or file complaints with
local code enforcement, even if justified, a landlord might
initiate a retaliatory eviction, suddenly increase their rent,
or take some other form of retaliatory action.
This bill appears to take away the court's discretion to
consider any motion to change venue. According to proponents,
motions to change venue in unlawful detainer trials are
invariably done with the sole purpose of delaying the trial.
They assert that the proper venue for the trial should always be
in the court location closest to the rental property that is the
subject of the action. The Apartment Association, California
Southern Cities states: "Plaintiffs and defendants should not be
permitted to demand a change in court venue. Such requests are
frivolous and only made to stall the lawful forward movement and
scheduling of a UD hearing. When the UD hearing is at the
closest court, no venue change request should be allowed."
As recently amended, the bill prohibits either party in a UD
action from requesting a change of venue if the lawsuit is being
AB 2003
Page 14
heard at the closest courthouse to the property-- as long as
that court location is equipped to handle a jury trial and
otherwise is a proper location that complies with CCP Section
392. According to the author, "This prevents frivolous change
in venue requests and saves unneeded travel time for tenants and
property owners, while avoiding additional delays in the case
stemming from changing venues."
Opponents counter, however, that there are a number of problems
with this inflexible rule, not the least of which is that it is
premised on a highly suspect presumption that any request for
change in venue is motivated purely by a desire to delay the
proceedings. They point out that this proposed rule does not
account for the possibility that a change of venue may be
required in order to accommodate, among other things, a party's
disqualification of a judge or commissioner for prejudice under
CCP Section170.6. In addition, opponents note that this rule
would effectively negate the rights of both parties under CCP
Section 397, which allows the court, upon a motion, to change
the place of trial when, for example, there is reason to believe
that an impartial trial cannot be had, or when the convenience
of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the
change.
The Committee notes that while it may make sense in many cases
to have the trial in the court location closest to the rental
property (so that both parties' inconvenience and travel time to
court is presumably minimized), there are other legitimate
reasons why a court may wish to grant a motion for change of
venue that should be respected and not impaired by such a
blanket prohibition. Furthermore, because of the unpredictable
distribution of courtroom resources in each county, it is not
necessarily true that a trial set for the closest court location
to the rental property would be completed more quickly than a
trial in a different court location, which, for the sake of
argument, perhaps may be five miles further away in distance but
with three times the number of available courtrooms handling UD
AB 2003
Page 15
cases in the county.
Existing Law Already Appears to Provide Strong Remedies Against
Unscrupulous Attorneys. Proponents contend that at various
times, tenants or their attorneys file the breach of warranty of
habitability defense, or other affirmative defenses, or motions
for change in venue-all without merit and done primarily to
delay the proceedings. With respect to these claims, the
Committee notes that the law already appears to provide strong
potential remedies. First, California attorneys are bound by
the California Rules of Professional Conduct and relevant
portions of the Business & Professions Code. These rules
generally prohibit an attorney from filing actions that the
attorney knows to be without merit solely to delay the
proceedings. (See e.g. California Rules of Professional Conduct
Rule 3-200 and Business & Professions Code Section 6068 (c).)
Existing rules of civil procedure permit the court to impose
sanctions against any attorney who uses any actions or tactics
that "are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary
delay." (CCP Sections 128.5(a) and 128.6(a).) In addition,
every pleading that an attorney submits to the court must be
signed. That signature certifies, among other things, that all
claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by
existing law, or by non-frivolous arguments for the extension,
modification, or reversal of existing law. By signing the
pleadings, the attorney is also swearing that all allegations,
denials, and other factual contentions are supported by evidence
or the likelihood of producing such evidence. (CCP Section
128.7.)
This bill authorizes landlords to enter a tenant's unit to
inspect for potential habitability violations, whether any have
been reported or not. Under current law, a landlord may enter
the tenant's dwelling unit only in the following cases: (1) in
case of emergency; (2) when the tenant has abandoned or
surrendered the premises; (3) pursuant to court order; (4) to
make necessary or agreed repairs, decorations, alterations or
AB 2003
Page 16
improvements, or supply necessary or agreed services; (5) to
exhibit the dwelling unit to prospective or actual purchasers,
mortgagees, tenants, workers, or contractors; and (6) to make an
inspection, upon the tenant's request, to allow the tenant to
remedy identified deficiencies in order to avoid deductions from
this or her security deposit after vacating the premises.
(Civil Code Section 1954.) According to the author, however,
current law is insufficient to allow the property owner to enter
the tenant's unit to inspect the premises for compliance with
habitability standards provided by Civil Code 1941.1.
Consequently, the author contends, "property owners are not
given a chance to verify or rectify habitability problems prior
to court."
To address this purported deficiency in current law, this bill
would amend the statute to additionally authorize a landlord to
enter a tenant's unit to comply with Civil Code Section 1941.1.
In support, the Apartment Association, California Southern
Cities and others write: "Responsible property owners want to
maintain property, but it is difficult to do so if they are not
aware of a building code issues? We believe it is in the best
interests of the owner and tenant to become aware of a code
condition and have the owner repair the premises if necessary.
The proposed change in law ensures repairs and improvements are
made in a timely manner."
The Committee notes that if a landlord is aware of repair or
maintenance that needs to be done, the law already allows the
landlord to enter the unit to make necessary or agreed repairs,
subject to important requirements to provide the tenant with
advance written notice of intent to enter and the purpose of
entry. In addition, no notice of entry is required under
Section 1954 if the tenant is present and consents to entry at
the time of entry, or the landlord is responding to an
emergency. In ordinary circumstances, both tenants and
landlords have incentive to identify and fix any problems with
the property, and existing law facilitates the landlord's access
AB 2003
Page 17
to do so in most cases.
For these reasons, opponents of the bill contend that the
proposed new entry rule is at best unnecessary, and at worst a
significant infringement on tenant privacy protections embodied
in Section 1954. They contend that the bill would arguably
allow a landlord to enter a unit at any time under the premise
of inspecting it for violations of Section 1941.1, whether or
not such violations are known or suspected to exist. Although
current law requiring advance notice would still apply to this
new type of landlord entry, it is not clear how, under this
bill, a tenant would ever be able to contest a landlord's
assertion that a particular instance of entry, whether for
legitimate or illegitimate purposes, was made for purposes of
"complying with Section 1941.1." Inspecting for any possible
problem, even when there are none, becomes a justifiable reason
to enter the tenant's unit after providing minimum notice.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Among other arguments made by supporters
is the bill is needed to reduce the amount of time it takes to
resolve unlawful detainer cases. For example, the High Desert
Association of Realtors and others state:
Recent data from the Judicial Council shows that the time
needed for resolving unlawful detainer (UD) cases has been
steadily growing. In 2014, less than 50% of cases were
resolved in 30 days and less than 68% were resolved in 45
days-a 7% decline, respectively, since 2010 and far short
of Judicial Council's goal of having all cases resolved
within 45 days. . . Taking small steps to improve
efficiency and transparency in the UD process will help
reduce demands on the courts, and meet the target timeframe
for resolving UD cases.
The Committee notes that the Judicial Council data cited by
AB 2003
Page 18
these supporters accurately reflects the data reported in the
Council's 2015 Court Statistics Report (See Figure 19, Civil
Case Processing Time: Unlawful Detainer, p. 42). However,
supporters' conclusion that these statistics argue for the
policy changes contained in this bill appears to reflect an
assumption that longer case processing times can be attributed
to certain delay tactics employed by litigants. It should be
noted that nowhere in the Court Statistics Report does the
Judicial Council suggest that its recommended targets for case
processing times can or should be achieved by changing
procedural or substantive due process requirements. Instead, a
more reasoned interpretation of the data in the Court Statistics
Report is through the prism of court funding, resource
distribution within and among the courts, and access to justice
for civil litigants in California.
Previous related legislation: AB 2508 (Fox) of 2014 would have
required, in an unlawful detainer action for default in payment
of rent in which specified affirmative defenses are asserted,
that a defendant set forth and allege specified facts in support
of those affirmative defenses in the defendant's answer to the
complaint. This bill also would have prohibited tenants in
unlawful detainer actions from filing a general written denial
in lieu of demurrer or other answer to the complaint. AB 2508
failed in this Committee.
AB 2003
Page 19
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Apartment Association, California Southern Cities
Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles
Apartment Association of Orange County
California Apartment Association
California Association of Realtors
East Bay Rental Housing Association
Greater Antelope Valley Association of Realtors
High Desert Association of Realtors
North Valley Property Owners Association
San Diego County Apartment Association
AB 2003
Page 20
Santa Barbara Rental Property Association
Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association
Opposition
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation (CRLAF)
Tenants Together
Western Center on Law and Poverty (WCLP)
Analysis Prepared by:Anthony Lew / JUD. / (916) 319-2334