It finds portion of tenant harassment law illegal
CITY HALL — Barred by a judge last month from prosecuting landlords who attempt to evict their tenants maliciously or without cause, lawyers here are now deciding how to fight back.
They hope to protect City Hall’s tenant harassment ordinance, passed in 1995 to shield renters from unruly landlords looking to profit off of vacancy decontrol, which allows property owners to raise rents when tenants move out of rent-controlled units. Before 1995, rents were kept low even for vacant units.
An appeals court on May 25 ruled against City Hall, finding in favor of a landlord group which claimed a portion of the tenant harassment law violated state law and was unconstitutional.
At issue is a clause in the ordinance that allowed City Hall to prosecute landlords who they deemed served eviction notices maliciously or without cause. The published decision by the Second District Court of Appeals found the law impinged on landlords’ rights under state law.
“The ordinance would ‘threaten free access to the courts by providing an end run around the limitations on the tort of malicious prosecution,” the ruling reads. A tort is a civil offense.
The lawsuit was levied against City Hall in May of 2002 by the Action Apartment Association, a group representing the interests of local landlords. It was tossed out twice by the trial court before the court of appeals heard it and ruled in favor of the association.
“The city attorney does not have the authority to make a determination as to whether or not the housing provider has acted maliciously,” said attorney Rosario Perry, who handled the case for the association and co-plaintiff landlord Doreen Dennis. “It’s not a legitimate function of city government. They’re not omniscient.
They don’t know whether the housing provider is acting with malice — and they’re not allowed to put their opinion in the mix. That’s up to the court.”
Perry said Dennis signed onto the lawsuit when City Hall threatened to pursue her criminally after she tried to evict a tenant in her building at 1024 Maple St. Dennis wanted to evict the tenant so her daughter could move into the four-unit building, Perry added.
“It’s B.S.,” he said. “She wanted to move her daughter in, and where the city attorney’s office got off questioning her motives and threatening to sue her criminally, I don’t know — but they did.”
Dennis didn’t return calls seeking comment for this story.
Prosecutors at City Hall said they are working on a response to the ruling and soon will present a proposed course of action to the City Council.
“The office is obviously taking this very seriously,” said Deputy City Attorney Adam Radinsky, who is working with a team of City Hall prosecutors on the case. “We’re very disappointed by the results and we obviously disagree with the court’s interpretation of the law.”
Radinsky wouldn’t discuss any details of possible responses to the ruling. City Hall is expected to appeal the ruling, or ask the appeal court to hear the matter again.
Officials receive about 100 complaints under the ordinance each year, Radinsky said. Most of those have been resolved out of court and City Hall has pressed charges only about 15 times.
The merits of the ordinance have been challenged before, and City Hall has prevailed in all of those instances. Radinsky said the same subsection currently at issue has been challenged twice before and other portions have been challenged three times. This was the first time the ordinance went before an appeals court.
“Regardless of what direction the city takes and regardless of the final outcome of this litigation, we strongly urge all Santa Monica tenants who believe they have received an invalid and harassing three-day notice or eviction to come forward, tell us about it,” Radinsky said. “There are other legal remedies available under state law in many of these cases, including the consumer protection laws.”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on June 3, 2004. Read the original PDF.