Existing law provides that a tenant of real property, property for a term less than life, or the executor of his or her estate, is guilty of unlawful detainer if, among other things, he or she continues in possession, in person or by subtenant, of the property or any part of the property, after the expiration of the term for which it is let to him or her, except as specified. Existing law requires a complaint filed in an unlawful detainer proceeding to include certain information and requires a defendant to answer the complaint, as specified, within 5 days of being served with a summons and the complaint, unless the court orders otherwise for good cause shown.

This bill would require a defendant in an unlawful detainer action to indicate on the appropriate Judicial Council answer form if he or she has hired an attorney to represent him or her in the matter, and would require the defendants attorney to contact the plaintiff or the plaintiffs attorney within certain timeframes. The bill would also require the defendant, action, if he or she asserts an affirmative defense of breach of the implied warranty of habitability, to indicate on the appropriate Judicial Council answer form if he or she has lodged a complaint or complaints regarding the inhabitability uninhabitability of the premises, premises before the filing of the action, and would require the defendant to include specified information about that complaint. information about who the complaint or complaints were lodged with. The bill would require the Judicial Council, on or before July 1, 2017, to revise the appropriate answer form to include spaces to input the information, as described above.

Existing law provides a tenant of real property, for a term less than life, or the executor of his or her estate, is guilty of unlawful detainer if, among other things, he or she continues in possession, in person or by subtenant, of the property or any part of the property, after the expiration of the term for which it is let to him or her, except as specified. Existing law requires a complaint filed in an unlawful detainer proceeding to include certain information and requires a defendant to answer the complaint, as specified, within 5 days of being served with a summons and the complaint, unless the court orders otherwise for good cause shown.

This bill would require a defendant in an unlawful detainer action to indicate on the appropriate Judicial Council answer form if he or she has hired an attorney to represent him or her in the matter, and would require the defendants attorney to contact the plaintiff or the plaintiffs attorney within certain timeframes. The bill would also require the defendant, if he or she asserts an affirmative defense of breach of the implied warranty of habitability, to indicate on the appropriate Judicial Council answer form if he or she has lodged a complaint regarding the inhabitability of the premises, and would require the defendant to include specified information about that complaint. The bill would require the Judicial Council, on or before July 1, 2017, to revise the appropriate answer form to include spaces to input the information, as described above.

Date of Hearing: April 5, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Mark Stone, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2003

Author:(Lackey) – As Amended Ver: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?

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.

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 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:
   1. Whether the complaint or complaints were lodged with the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s agent in charge of managing the premises.
   2. 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).

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 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.)
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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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

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