California Apartment Association Says It Will File Opening Brief in Measure H Appeal This Month

On its website late last month, the California Apartment Association said it expects to file papers in its appeal this month against Pasadena’s rent control law.

“In May, CAA appealed the unfavorable decision issued in its lawsuit challenging Pasadena’s rent control law, which was adopted by voters in the fall of 2022,” the CAA posted at the beginning of December.

“Due to court backlogs, the case has been in a holding pattern since then while awaiting a briefing schedule from the appeal court. That is finally changing, as CAA’s opening brief is now expected to be filed in early January.”

The group provided the information in a post on cases it expects to heat up in the winter.

After appealing the decision issued in its lawsuit in May, a CAA spokesman said that once the Superior Court provided the case record to the Court of Appeal – a process which can take several months – the CAA would submit a brief to the appellate court arguing why the unfavorable portions of the earlier ruling could be overturned, to which the City of Pasadena and other parties can respond.

After the case is fully briefed by the parties, there will be the opportunity to conduct oral arguments in front of the panel of three judges who will decide the case.

“The City will have the opportunity to submit its own brief – likely in March or April of 2024, the group posted on its website.

Measure H was passed by nearly 54% of votes cast in the November election.

In March, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge denied most of the California Apartment Association’s claims challenging Pasadena’s rent and eviction control policies being implemented by Measure H.

In a 35-page ruling issued after the hearing, Judge Mary Strobel rejected a majority of CAA’s claims, finding that “Measure H does not fundamentally alter the Pasadena City Charter or the basic structure of city government in Pasadena.”

The judge also upheld the measure’s provisions requiring that tenants make up a super majority of the rent board. CAA had argued that these restrictions violated the state constitution, which prohibits conditioning the right to hold public office on a “property qualification,” as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the state and federal constitutions.

Strobel rejected these claims, finding that the state constitution’s prohibition on property qualifications was not applicable in this circumstance and that the equal protection clause was not implicated as landlords and tenants are not “similarly situated.

The ruling further rejected CAA’s challenge to the measure’s requirement for landlords to pay relocation assistance to tenants who move out in response to a rent increase, which CAA asserted was an improper penalty on rental property owners who are exempt from rent control under the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act. The judge found that since the requirement doesn’t directly restrict rent increases, Costa-Hawkins remains unviolated.

The association argued that the measure was an unlawful revision to the city’s charter, that the restrictions on who may serve on the rent board created to administer the law were unconstitutional, and that various provisions of the ordinance were preempted by state law.