BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
AB 2485 (Dickinson and Ridley-Thomas)
As Amended May 21, 2014
Hearing Date: June 24, 2014
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: Yes
TH
SUBJECT
Unlawful Detainer: Nuisance: Controlled Substances
DESCRIPTION
This bill 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
tenant for illegal conduct involving a controlled substance 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
(more)
AB 2485 (Dickinson and Ridley-Thomas)
Page 2 of ?
to expressly allow courts to order "partial evictions" to allow
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
AB 2485 (Dickinson and Ridley-Thomas)
Page 3 of ?
report again could not fully evaluate the merits of the program,
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
Oakland and Sacramento to file an unlawful detainer action in
the name of the people to abate nuisances caused by illegal
conduct involving a controlled substance on real property. 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 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
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 for the
purpose of unlawfully selling, serving, storing, keeping,
manufacturing, or giving away any controlled substance,
precursor, or analog, and every building or place wherein or
upon which those acts take place, is a nuisance which shall be
AB 2485 (Dickinson and Ridley-Thomas)
Page 4 of ?
enjoined, abated, and prevented, and for which damages may be
recovered, whether it is a public or private nuisance. (Health
& Saf. Code Sec. 11570.)
Existing law permits a landlord to file an unlawful detainer
action against a tenant in order to evict him or her when, among
other things, the tenant has: (1) committed waste upon the
premises contrary to the conditions of the lease; or (2)
committed or maintained a nuisance upon the premises or
permitted the nuisance to be committed or maintained. (Code
Civ. Proc. Sec. 1161(4).) While a landlord must prove each
element of the unlawful detainer action, the tenant may also
present evidence to support an affirmative defense which, if
proved, defeats the landlord's right to possession.
Existing law permits 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 a controlled substance on real property, as provided.
(Civ. Code Sec. 3486(a).)
Existing law provides 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.
(Civ. Code Sec. 3486(a).)
Existing law states 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. Existing law also requires 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. (Civ. Code
Sec. 3486(a).)
Existing law provides 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
AB 2485 (Dickinson and Ridley-Thomas)
Page 5 of ?
provision for costs of investigation, discovery, and reasonable
attorney's fees, in an amount not to exceed six hundred dollars
($600). (Civ. Code Sec. 3486(a).)
Existing law provides 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. Existing law also provides 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. (Civ. Code Sec.
3486(a).)
Existing law states 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. (Civ. Code Sec. 3486(b).)
Existing law states that the authority to bring an unlawful
detainer against a tenant to abate a nuisance caused by illegal
conduct involving a controlled substance on real property
described above shall apply only to the City of Los Angeles.
(Civ. Code Sec. 3486(f).)
This bill would, until January 1, 2019, extend the authority to
bring an action for unlawful detainer under the above provisions
to the City of Sacramento and the City of Oakland as part of an
unlawful detainer pilot program.
This bill would require jurisdictions participating in the pilot
program to transmit specified information to the California
Research Bureau regarding their use of the 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.
AB 2485 (Dickinson and Ridley-Thomas)
Page 6 of ?
This bill would also provide that a property owner shall only be
required to pay the costs or fees associated with assigning an
unlawful detainer action under this program upon acceptance of
the assignment for unlawful detainer by the jurisdiction
participating in the pilot program or by the City of Los
Angeles, as specified.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
The author writes:
Persons who use their residential premises for illegal
activity involving firearms, ammunition and controlled
substances threaten the health and safety of their neighbors,
and create conditions which are deleterious to the
neighborhood within which they live. Existing law provides
that a tenant who maintains, commits, or permits these kinds
of nuisances upon the premises is subject to eviction pursuant
to an unlawful detainer action.
In some instances, a landlord is unwilling or unable to take
action to evict a tenant who is committing an illegal
controlled substance or firearm related crime on his [or] her
property. In those cases, the crime continues to occur and
the harms the crime causes persist. In recognition of this
fact the Legislature granted the Office of the Sacramento City
Attorney and several other city attorneys the authority to
file an action for unlawful detainer against any person who
was in violation of the nuisance or the illegal purpose
provision, with respect to controlled substances or unlawful
weapons or ammunition.
. . .
This bill seeks to re-establish pilot authority for the City
of Sacramento to continue to participate in the controlled
substances-related eviction program pursuant to Civil Code
Section 3486. Authority for Sacramento's participation in the
program was first established by AB 530 (Krekorian), Ch. 244,
Stats. 2009, but that authority lapsed on December 31, 2013
pursuant to the sunset date in AB 530 when no statute was
subsequently enacted to continue Sacramento's participation
without interruption.
2. Unlawful detainer process under the pilot program
AB 2485 (Dickinson and Ridley-Thomas)
Page 7 of ?
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 controlled substances. 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
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 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.
AB 2485 (Dickinson and Ridley-Thomas)
Page 8 of ?
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 controlled substance
related activity. As the City of Sacramento notes:
Illegal drug dealing, particularly in residential areas, is of
major concern to the City of Sacramento because of its
devastating and destructive impacts on neighborhoods. Illegal
drug activity 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 drug activity also
undeniably leads to 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 our City Attorney to evict tenants engaged in
drug-related crimes AB 2485 serves to protect other tenants
living in the same apartment complex or residential home. The
City Attorney will step into the shoes of landlords unable or
unwilling to evict tenants with chronic histories of illegal
drug 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 under this pilot program even when the subject
tenant has never been arrested, indicted, or convicted of a
crime. In many instances a law enforcement report may provide
AB 2485 (Dickinson and Ridley-Thomas)
Page 9 of ?
sufficient evidence to reasonably conclude, in advance of a
trial on the merits, that a tenant did indeed commit some
unlawful act involving controlled substances. 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
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 tenants 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 a "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.
AB 2485 (Dickinson and Ridley-Thomas)
Page 10 of ?
Celis (2004) 33 Cal.4th 667, 673.)
Requiring law enforcement to articulate probable cause for
arrest for controlled substance 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 offers the
following amendment that would require an unlawful detainer
action initiated under this program to be based on an arrest
report.
Author's Amendment :
On page 2, line 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 controlled substances 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
controlled substances laws may be at risk of eviction even
when the violation does not overtly threaten public safety.
The case of Cook v. City of Buena Park demonstrates the
potentially disproportionate harm these unlawful detainer
programs may cause. In Cook, a California appellate court
examined a similar controlled substances unlawful detainer
program operated by the City of Buena Park where the city
attempted to evict Douglas Dixon, the roommate of Cook's
tenant. Dixon was cited by the police for possession of drug
paraphernalia in violation of Health and Safety Code Section
11364, and thereafter participated in a drug treatment
diversion program. Importantly, under California's drug
diversion program, "[a] defendant's plea of guilty . . . shall
not constitute a conviction for any purpose." (Pen. Code Sec.
1000.1(d).) Nonetheless, shortly after Dixon's citation, the
city initiated its unlawful detainer pre-eviction notice
procedure similar to the one in this bill's pilot program.
The court ultimately invalidated Buena Park's unlawful
detainer ordinance, holding that it violated procedural due
process "[b]ecause the ordinance imposes on landlords a
substantial risk of erroneous deprivation of property rights
AB 2485 (Dickinson and Ridley-Thomas)
Page 11 of ?
through compelled eviction litigation, unwarranted fines and
penalties, and countersuits by tenants." (Cook v. City of
Buena Park (Cal.App.4th Dist. 2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1, 3.)
The Cook case demonstrates how this bill's low threshold for
initiating unlawful detainer proceedings may actually harm
tenants and communities struggling with substance abuse
problems, and could potentially undermine California's larger
public safety goals. In weighing the merits of expanding the
existing controlled substance unlawful detainer program to
other cities, the Committee may wish to consider the following
points:
Consistency with current drug policy : As California
re-assesses the public safety risks associated with drug
use, particularly recreational use of marijuana, this
program may be out-of-step with the growing consensus
against criminalizing drug use and addiction. Removing
Californians afflicted by drug addiction from their
families and existing support networks via an unlawful
detainer action may push our most vulnerable citizens
further into addiction.
Consistency with efforts to reintegrate low-level
offenders : Permitting cities to evict those arrested for
or convicted of low-level drug offences from their homes
may harm current efforts to re-integrate offenders into
their communities after rehabilitation. It is already very
difficult for those released from jail or prison to secure
adequate housing upon reentry into civil society. Ensuring
that offenders cannot return to their former residences may
compound this difficulty, and may be at odds with
California's public policy of giving these offenders a
second chance.
Impact to families : This bill's pilot program would
authorize cities to evict not only an individual thought to
be a nuisance but also the rest of the tenants living with
that individual, allowing for the potential removal of
entire families. Even when other family members are
permitted to stay in their homes, evicting individual
members necessarily splits up families and may disrupt
existing support networks.
Impact on future housing and employment : Individuals
that have unlawful detainers on their record may face
additional burdens when seeking future rental housing and
employment, thereby further harming their chance of
successful reintegration into the community.
AB 2485 (Dickinson and Ridley-Thomas)
Page 12 of ?
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 relocate one's home may significantly
outweigh any harm to the community caused by the controlled
substances 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 :
On page 6, between lines 35 and 36, 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).)
AB 2485 (Dickinson and Ridley-Thomas)
Page 13 of ?
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." (Id.) 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
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 offers 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 Amendments :
On page 7, between lines 24 and 25, insert: "(ii) The racial
or ethnic identity of the tenant against whom the unlawful
detainer action is sought."
On page 7, line 25, strike "(ii)" and insert "(iii)"
On page 7, line 28, strike "(iii)" and insert "(iv)"
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
AB 2485 (Dickinson and Ridley-Thomas)
Page 14 of ?
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 8, between lines 33 and 34, insert: "(L) Whether the
tenants continued to engage in unlawful activity at their new
place of residence, to the extent known."
On page 9, between lines 10 and 11, insert: "(c) 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 (b) to the California Research Bureau."
On page 9, line 11, strike "(c)" and insert "(d)"
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 controlled
substances. 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
AB 2485 (Dickinson and Ridley-Thomas)
Page 15 of ?
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 a 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
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 2 following "assignment" insert: "and the
filing of the action"
6. Technical Amendment:
In prior amendments to this bill, the author inadvertently
struck a provision of existing law pertaining to the City of Los
Angeles' authority to initiate unlawful detainer actions under
this program. The author offers the following amendment to
replace the stricken language since it is not the subject of
this bill:
Author's Amendment :
On page 6, line 39, insert: (g) This section shall become
operative on January 1, 2014, only if the City of Los Angeles
has regularly reported to the California Research Bureau as
required by this section, as it read during the period from
January 1, 2010, to January 1, 2014, inclusive. For purposes
of this section, the City of Los Angeles shall be deemed to
AB 2485 (Dickinson and Ridley-Thomas)
Page 16 of ?
have complied with this reporting requirement if the 2013
report to the Legislature by the California Research Bureau
indicates that the City of Los Angeles has regularly reported
to the bureau.
Support : Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles;
California Apartment Association; Los Angeles City Attorney;
Santa Barbara Rental Property Association
Opposition : Apartment Association, Southern California Cities;
East Bay Rental Housing Association; Nor Cal Rental Property
Association
HISTORY
Source : City of Sacramento
Related Pending Legislation : AB 2310 (Ridley-Thomas and
Dickinson, 2014) 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 tenant of rental housing for unlawful activities
relating to weapons or ammunition 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 71, Noes 0)
Assembly Committee on Appropriations (Ayes 16, Noes 0)
Assembly Committee on Judiciary (Ayes 10, Noes 0)
**************
AB 2485 (Dickinson and Ridley-Thomas)
Page 17 of ?