You are on page 1of 10

AB 2343

Page 1

Date of Hearing: April 17, 2018

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY


Mark Stone, Chair
AB 2343 (Chiu) – As Introduced February 13, 2018

As Proposed to be Amended

SUBJECT: REAL PROPERTY: POSSESSION: UNLAWFUL DETAINER

KEY ISSUE: IN LIGHT OF A GROWING CRISIS IN CALIFORNIA OF RISING RENTS


AND A LACK OF AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING, SHOULD A NUMBER OF
CHANGES BE MADE TO LANDLORD-TENANT LAWS THAT WOULD PROVIDE
REASONABLE EXTENSIONS OF TIME FOR TENANTS TO RESPOND TO NOTICES
AND EVICTION PAPERS, PARTICULARLY AS NEEDED TO PREVENT AVOIDABLE
EVICTIONS AND ENSURE DUE PROCESS FOR EXISTING TENANTS?

SYNOPSIS

Proponents of this bill point out that California is facing a growing crisis of skyrocketing rents
and a real lack of affordable rental housing. By some estimates, one third of renters pay more
than 50% of their income towards rent, and homelessness has risen statewide by 15% since
2015. Accordingly, the author and the sponsors of this legislation believe that certain changes
to our state's landlord-tenant laws governing tenant notices and unlawful detainer procedure are
warranted in order to level the playing field, prevent avoidable evictions, and ensure tenants'
due process rights.

This bill, co-sponsored by Western Center on Law and Poverty (WCLP) and California Rural
Legal Assistance Foundation (CRLAF), would enact the following changes to landlord-tenant
law: (1) extend the notice period from 3 days to 10 days for curable breaches of the lease,
including nonpayment of rent; (2) extend the notice period from 3 days to 5 days for non-curable
breaches of the lease (e.g. committing nuisance, engaging in illegal activity); (3) extend the time
period, from 5 days to 14 days, for a tenant to file an answer to an unlawful detainer complaint;
(4) heighten notice requirements for notices to perform-or-quit; (5) strengthen the ability to
bring a claim for retaliation against a tenant for engaging in tenant organizing activities; (6)
shorten the time for compliance with third party subpoenas in eviction cases; (7) require the
landlord to file proof of service of the summons and complaint at least ten days before entry of
default; and (8) expand indigent fee waivers to include witness fees. Proponents report that
many of these reforms are based on their experience with assisting low-income tenants in
eviction cases, and based on real world, not theoretical, considerations of how California's
current eviction procedures operate. The bill is supported by a host of legal aid organizations
and tenant advocacy groups, who believe these reforms are needed to protect vulnerable tenants,
avoid needless evictions, and stem the tide of homelessness. The bill is opposed by landlords,
apartment associations, and the Realtors Association, among others. Opponents contend the bill
will significantly delay the eviction process; enable tenants to fashion legal defenses and stretch
out timelines in order to get "free rent"; and increase the cost of doing business as a landlord, as
well as the cost of housing generally.

SUMMARY: Enacts various procedural changes to landlord-tenant law, including specified


extensions of time for tenants to respond to notices and eviction papers. Specifically, this bill:
AB 2343
Page 2

1) Extends the notice period for unlawful detainer, from 3 days to 10 days, for a tenant to
address curable breaches of the lease, including nonpayment of rent and failure to perform
certain duties under the lease.

2) Requires the above notice to fully describe the nature of the alleged unperformed duty,
including the date, place, witnesses, and any other relevant facts, as well as the manner in
which the duty may be performed. Also requires the notice to state that, upon request, the
landlord must provide reasonable accommodations to the tenant for any disability of the
tenant that affects his or her ability to perform the duty.

3) Extends the notice period for unlawful detainer, from 3 days to 5 days, for non-curable
breaches of the lease, including, for example, committing nuisance on the premises or using
the premises for an unlawful purpose.

4) Extends the period, from 5 days to 14 days, in which the defendant may file his or her answer
in response to a notice of summons in an unlawful detainer case.

5) Requires the plaintiff in an unlawful detainer action to file proof of service of the summons
and complaint at least 10 calendar days before a default judgment may be entered against a
defendant.

6) Creates a rebuttable presumption that an eviction action is retaliatory if the eviction action is
based upon a notice which does not state the ground upon which the lessor, in good faith,
seeks to recover possession, and said notice was served upon the tenant within 180 days of
the tenant, individually, collectively with other tenants, or through a tenant organization
representing the tenant, has presented to the lessor a demand or grievance related to the
subject premises, including, but not limited to, a grievance related to the policies of the
lessor, accommodation of a disability, tenant rights or management practices, or other issue
relating to the operation of the premises or treatment of tenants.

7) Decreases the time for compliance with a third-party deposition subpoena in an unlawful
detainer case. Compliance is commanded on a date that is no earlier than five days after
service of the deposition subpoena.

8) Applies the existing court fee waiver process to third-party witness fees to allow indigent
parties who meet current standards of eligibility to waive witness fees for a witness who is a
code enforcement officer, building inspector, or other government official, as specified,
whose attendance is reasonably necessary for the prosecution or defense of the case, and who
is subpoenaed to testify regarding the rental premises that are the subject of the action.

EXISTING LAW:

1) Provides that a tenant has committed unlawful detainer when he or she continues in
possession of the property without the landlord's permission after the tenant's nonpayment of
rent and service of a 3-day notice to pay or quit, stating the amount that is due. (Code of
Civil Procedure Section 1161 (2).)

2) Provides that a tenant has committed unlawful detainer when he or she continues in
possession of the property without the landlord's permission after the tenant has breached a
covenant of the lease or failed to perform other conditions under the lease and after service of
AB 2343
Page 3

a 3-day notice requiring performance of such covenants or conditions. (Code of Civil


Procedure Section 1161 (3).)

3) Provides that a tenant has committed unlawful detainer when he or she continues in
possession of the property without the landlord's permission after the tenant has breached a
covenant of the lease prohibiting subletting, assignment, or waste; has committed or
permitted a nuisance on the premises; or used the premises for an unlawful purpose. (Code
of Civil Procedure section 1161 (4).)

4) Provides the defendant in an unlawful detainer action with 5 days to respond to a notice of
summons. Requires entry of default judgment against the defendant if he or she fails to
appear and defend. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1167.)

5) Requires the court clerk, upon written application of the plaintiff and when simultaneously
presented with proof of the service of summons and complaint, to enter a default judgment
against any defendant so served if that person fails to appear and defend in an unlawful
detainer action. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1169.)

6) Provides that if the landlord retaliates against the tenant because the tenant has exercised
his/her rights under this chapter or made a complaint to an appropriate agency as to
habitability of a dwelling, and if the tenant is not in default as to the payment of rent, the
landlord may not recover possession of the dwelling in any action or proceeding, cause the
tenant to quit involuntarily, increase the rent, or decrease any services within 180 days from
the date the tenant has exercised certain rights, including, among other things:

a) In good faith, having given notice or made an oral complaint to the landlord regarding
habitability.

b) In good faith, having filed a written complaint, or registered an oral complaint, with an
appropriate agency, of which the landlord has notice, for the purpose of obtaining
correction of a condition relating to habitability. (Civil Code Section 1942.5 (a).)

7) Makes it unlawful for a lessor to increase rent, decrease services, cause a lessee to quit
involuntarily, bring an action to recover possession, or threaten to do any of those acts, for
the purpose of retaliating against the lessee because he or she has lawfully organized or
participated in a lessees’ association or an organization advocating lessees’ rights or has
lawfully and peaceably exercised any rights under the law. Further provides that in an action
brought by or against the lessee to enforce a violation of this rule, the lessee shall bear the
burden of producing evidence that the lessor’s conduct was, in fact, retaliatory. (Civil Code
Section 1942.5 (d).)

8) Commands compliance for a deposition subpoena, as specified, on a date that is no earlier


than 20 days after the issuance, or 15 days after the service, of the deposition subpoena,
whichever date is later. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 2020.410.)

9) Provides for subpoenaing the attendance of any employee of a local public agency with
regard to events or transactions he or she had perceived or investigated in the course of their
duties, and for the payment and reimbursement of the employee's compensation and traveling
expenses incurred in complying with the subpoena. Requires the party at whose request the
subpoena is issued to reimburse the employing public agency for these costs by tendering the
AB 2343
Page 4

amount of $275 to the person accepting the subpoena for each day the employee of the local
public agency is required to remain in attendance pursuant to the subpoena. (Government
Code Section 68096.1.)

10) Provides for subpoenaing the attendance of peace officers, firefighters, and state, county and
trial court employees with regard to events or transactions they have perceived or
investigated in the course of their duties, and for the payment and reimbursement of the
employees' compensation and traveling expenses incurred in complying with the subpoena.
Requires the party at whose request the subpoena is issued to reimburse the employing public
entity for these costs by tendering the amount of $275 to the person accepting the subpoena
for each day the peace officer, firefighter, or state, county or court employee is required to
remain in attendance pursuant to the subpoena. (Government Code Section 68097.2.)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.

COMMENTS: California is facing a growing crisis of skyrocketing rents and a real lack of
affordable rental housing. Our state has the sixth largest economy in the world, but also has the
highest poverty rate in the country when factoring for housing costs. One third of renters pay
more than 50% of their income towards rent. Renters are also more likely than homeowners to
say their housing costs cause them financial strain, and more than a third of renters say they
currently face a lot of financial strain. California has also suffered a major increase in
homelessness statewide, rising 15% from 2015 to 2017. Accordingly, the author and the
sponsors of this legislation believe that preserving existing tenancies and ensuring tenants' due
process rights are especially crucial in this environment.

Stated need for the bill: According to bill co-sponsors Western Center on Law and Poverty
(WCLP) and California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation (CRLAF):

Last year, the California legislature enacted historic measures to improve the State’s
affordable housing supply, addressing the shortage in affordable housing and providing
additional tools to preserve existing affordable housing. As we address California’s
supply of affordable housing, it is essential that we also address the issues that lead
tenants to be displaced from their homes in the face of rising rents and unprecedented
levels of homelessness.

California law provides shortened court timelines and accelerated procedures in eviction
cases. These short timelines can lead to tenants being evicted and ending up homeless
despite having good defenses to the eviction, being able to pay the rent demanded by
their landlord, or being able to fix the issue the landlord is evicting them for. Legal
services attorneys across the state report that in some cases, tenants don’t even know
about the eviction case filed against them until they’ve missed their chance to defend
themselves.

This bill would make common-sense changes to eviction procedures to ensure tenants’
housing and due process rights are respected, give landlords and tenants an opportunity to
resolve issues without the cost and delay of a court case, make the eviction process more
efficient for all parties, and ensure tenants are able to exercise their legal rights without
fear of retaliation.
AB 2343
Page 5

Extension of 3-day notice periods would help prevent avoidable evictions and keep tenants
housed. Under California law, when a landlord alleges that a tenant has violated their lease or
failed to pay their rent, the landlord may serve the tenant with a notice requiring them to either
remedy the situation or vacate their rental unit within 3 calendar days. For serious, “incurable”
breaches of the lease, the landlord can simply require the tenant to vacate within 3 days. Once
the 3-day period has passed, even if the tenant is able to deliver the unpaid rent or resolve the
alleged violation of the lease, the landlord is allowed to refuse the tenant’s offer and move
forward with an eviction case in court.

Proponents of the bill contend that three calendar days to cure a breach is an unreasonably short
time period and results in many avoidable evictions of tenants who could have paid the rent or
resolved the problem with a little more time, or even if the notice was served on a different day
of the week and the days counted differently. For example, the Legal Aid Foundation of Los
Angeles (LAFLA) explains:

A 3 day notice to pay-rent-or-quit, if served on a Friday, would effectively expire the


following Monday. This leaves a tenant with only one business day to access many
establishments that are closed over the weekend, such as banks and places of
employment. This problem is magnified even further if the third day falls on a holiday.
To exacerbate matters further, most tenants do not get the full 72 hours to remedy their
problem because they are not personally served with the notice. Most notices are posted
on the doors of tenants' homes and tenants do not see the notices until they get home from
work or picking up their children.

WCLP stresses the frustration reported by many advocates about evictions of tenants who could
have resolved non-payment if not for the narrow 3-day window, stating:

For many tenants, (the 3-day notice) means there is insufficient time to correct the
problem. For some, it may be a matter of a few days before they receive their next
paycheck, they are able to correct an error in government benefits or other source of
finances, or can visit a social service agency in order to comply with a “pay or quit”
notice. Legal services programs throughout the state report that they are visited by
frustrated tenants every day who are able to resolve the situations leading to their
eviction, but not within the extremely narrow time provided by California law.

Accordingly, this bill does both of the following: (1) extends the notice period from 3 days to 10
days for curable breaches of the lease, including nonpayment of rent; and (2) extends the notice
period from 3 days to 5 days for non-curable breaches of the lease (e.g. illegal subletting,
committing nuisance, engaging in illegal activity).

Opponents of the bill, including the Apartment Association, California Southern Cities, counter
simply that 3 days to pay or quit is fair. The Association writes:

There is no reason to extend the timeframe upon which a tenant must perform his or her
duty to pay rent. The unlawful detainer process from start to finish is already lengthy,
spanning many weeks to months depending on the litigation and settlement process. In
the end, most owners never receive the rent that is owed even after the tenant vacates the
premises. Thus, there is no reason to extend the already lengthy summary process.
AB 2343
Page 6

Other opponents of the bill, including the California Apartment Association, the Realtors, and
the Civil Justice Association of California (CJAC), joined on a coalition letter in opposition,
arguing that extending the 3-day notice to pay-or-quit to 10 days is tantamount to making
property owners into creditors. They state:

You are asking landlords to allow tenants to forego the payment of rent for an
unprecedented period of time, turning property owners into creditors, a position they are
not willing or able to maintain. Property owners rely upon the rent to pay the mortgage,
insurance, maintenance costs, utilities, government taxes and fees, and employee costs,
which, in most cases, are due much sooner than the time you have set for the payment of
rent under your bill.

In response to claims that longer notice periods are somehow "unprecedented" or economically
unsustainable for landlords, Committee staff notes that its analysis of AB 265 (2011) revealed
that California is one of about 17 states in the nation that provided only a three-day notice at the
time for non-payment of rent. By contrast, the majority of states provide for a longer notice
period, ranging from five days to 30 days, albeit with most of them falling within a 7 to 14-day
period. Tenants in Kansas, Indiana, and North Carolina received a 10-day notice to pay or quit;
tenants in Tennessee, Vermont, and Massachusetts received a 14-day notice to pay or quit; and
tenants in Wisconsin and the District of Columbia received a 30-day notice to pay or quit. It
should be noted however, that a direct comparison to other states may be difficult, given that
tenants in those states may possess equivalent or lesser protections than tenants have under
California law, and the study was conducted several years ago.

Heightened notice requirements for notices to perform-or-quit will help tenants perform and
avoid unnecessary evictions. According to the author, some tenants fail to cure on a 3-day
perform-or-quit notice not only because 3 days is not enough time, but also because the notice
they receive does not include enough information about how to resolve the alleged breach.
Follow up communication with the landlord could take so long that there is no time left to cure
the alleged breach. To resolve this problem, the bill requires the 3-day notice to fully describe
the nature of the alleged unperformed duty, including the date, place, witnesses, and any other
relevant facts, as well as the manner in which the duty may be performed. The notice must also
state that, upon request, the landlord must provide reasonable accommodations to the tenant for
any disability of the tenant that affects his or her ability to perform the duty.

Proponents, including the Berkeley Rent Stabilization Program (RSP), assert that the heightened
notice requirements will serve to cut down on dubious lease violation claims, which the RSP
says are incentivized by operation of the Costa-Hawkins Act in a rent-controlled city like
Berkeley. Opponents of the bill object to the provision requiring the landlord to affirmatively
disclose the names of witnesses of the alleged breach in the notice. They contend this will put
witnesses in danger of being targeted by disgruntled neighbors.

Extension of time for tenant to file an answer to an eviction would help tenants have their day
in court and prevent avoidable default evictions. Existing law provides the defendant in an
unlawful detainer action with 5 days to respond to a notice of summons. If the tenant does not
respond in that time, then the landlord can obtain a default judgment against the tenant, and the
tenant loses the case without ever getting his day in court, even if the tenant has a meritorious
defense to the eviction. This bill would extend the time to answer from five calendar days to 14
days.
AB 2343
Page 7

WCLP contends that the 5-day time period to answer is too short and results in many default
evictions in which the tenant had a meritorious case. They write that extending the time to file
an answer is a reasonable measure to help level the playing field between tenants and landlords.

Filing an answer often requires the help of an attorney to identify all the legal defenses
the tenant may have and to evaluate their case. Even though answers can be filed without
an attorney, it can be difficult for low-income and disabled tenants especially to meet the
requirement to file their answer within 5 days, given that they often must spend
significant time preparing the answer and additional time traveling to a courthouse where
it can be filed. Many tenants have been unsuccessful in filing their answer in time, and as
a result have lost their cases automatically despite having defenses.

Landlords, on the other hand, are not under similar pressures; they are able to seek their
preferred legal assistance, gather evidence, and prepare their cases to their satisfaction
before deciding to file in court. Advocates throughout California report that low-income
tenants are routinely precluded from defending themselves from eviction in the
jurisdictions where they practice due to the 5-day deadline to file an answer. This bill will
balance the scales and ensure that the due process rights of all parties are protected and
respected.

Opponents argue that this extension of time, combined with other extensions of time in the bill,
unreasonably adds nearly a month to the eviction process. Opponents liken this provision to a
grant of "free rent" up to 14 days that will delay the eviction of a defaulting tenant who knows he
has not paid rent and just means to stall. They state:

It’s important to understand that rental property owners proceed with an evictio n only as
a last resort. In California, it’s too expensive and too time consuming to evict a tenant,
and most owners would much prefer to work with a tenant. Even under existing law, the
average eviction for the non-payment of rent can take up to two months. The existing
eviction process is meant to ensure that owners can regain their property (quickly) . . .
AB 2343 places the eviction process on par with all other civil cases, which can take
months to resolve. Small “mom and pop” rental owners cannot afford to go months on
end without a rent payment while the eviction process drags on.

The Legal Aid Society of San Diego (LASSSD) argues that extending the time to answer will
improve justice outcomes by allowing more cases to be heard on their merits, and that fewer
default judgments may even reduce strain on the courts. They explain:

AB 2343 changes the deadline to respond to an unlawful detainer summons from 5


calendar days to 14, giving defendants more time to obtain legal advice, file a response
by mail if they cannot travel to the downtown courthouse, and avoid losing by default.
Fewer default judgments means fewer law and motion hearings to vacate the default,
more cases decided on their merit in the first place, and less strain on our already over-
burdened court system.

Protecting tenants from retaliation for engaging in tenant organizing. Existing law, Civil
Code Section 1942.5 (d), prohibits evictions in retaliation for tenants engaging in tenant
organizing activities, or peaceably exercising any rights under the law. In a suit brought by or
against the tenant under this statute, it is the tenant who bears the burden of producing evidence
that the landlord's conduct was, in fact, retaliatory. Notably, unlike subdivision (a) of Section
AB 2343
Page 8

1942.5, the law does not limit claims of retaliation under subdivision (d) to only those tenants
who are current on their rent at the time. According to the sponsors, however, it is difficult to
enforce claims of retaliation under current law because of the burden of proof. They explain:

When landlords file evictions against tenants to retaliate against them for participating in
organizing activities, such as jointly presenting grievances to the landlord together with
their neighbors, they frequently have similar challenges proving the eviction is
retaliatory. This may be because the only evidence of the retaliation is a statement from a
landlord or manager, who later denies making the statement, or it may be implied that the
landlord is retaliating against the tenant for organizing but never explicitly stated.
Tenants may have trouble securing witnesses to prove their landlord is retaliating against
them for organizing as well, given that the witnesses of such activity are likely to be other
tenants in the building who may fear similar retaliation if they support a neighbor against
the interest of their landlord. Retaliatory evictions can have a chilling effect on tenant
organizing; it should always be a goal of the State to ensure tenants are able to inform
each other and assert their rights.

Under subdivision (a) of Section 1942.5, there is a presumption of retaliation when a landlord
files an eviction case against a tenant within 180 days of making a complaint regarding their
housing to a government agency, such as a code enforcement or public health agency. This
presumption is designed to protect tenants against retaliation for exercising their legal rights in
situations where proving such retaliation may be difficult for tenants, because their landlord can
claim a different reason for filing the eviction. As currently in print, the bill would extend this
180 day presumption of retaliation to lawfully organizing or participating in a tenants'
association.

Opponents of the bill characterize this part of the bill as allowing tenants who join a tenant
advocacy organization to force their landlord to provide free rent for six months when they claim
retaliation. Because tenants could claim retaliation even while being in default on rent and be
potentially entitled to avoid being evicted for six months, it became clear to the Committee and
the author that this provision had some unresolved workability problems in its current form.

Proposed author's amendments worked out with Committee staff now adopt a different approach.
As proposed to be amended, the bill no longer attempts to integrate retaliation for tenant
organizing into the 180-day presumption of retaliation framework outlined in subdivision (a) of
Section 1942.5. Instead, the proposed amendments restore existing law in that area, and add
additional language seeking to strengthen the ability of tenants to meet their burden for proving
retaliation under current subdivision (d).

Specifically, these newly proposed amendments create a rebuttable presumption that an eviction
action is retaliatory if the eviction action is based upon a notice which does not state the ground
upon which the lessor, in good faith, seeks to recover possession, and said notice was served
upon the tenant within 180 days of the tenant, individually or collectively, presenting to the
lessor a demand or grievance related to the subject premises. These demands or grievances are
not enumerated in whole, but include and are not limited to: (1) a grievance related to the
policies of the lessor; (2) accommodation of a disability; (3) tenant rights or management
practices; or (4) some other issue relating to the operation of the premises or treatment of tenants.

Committee staff finds this to be an improvement over the version of the bill in print because the
start of the 180 day period can be measured from a discreet, objectively established event (here,
AB 2343
Page 9

the date of a demand or grievance presented to the landlord). In addition, the landlord is more
likely to have actual knowledge of the triggering event because there must be a demand or
grievance related to the subject rental property of the landlord, attested to by at least one of the
landlord's current tenants. At the time of this analysis, however, it was not known what effect, if
any, these proposed amendments will have on the opposition to the bill.

Ensuring proper service of process for the summons and complaint in evictions. Existing law,
CCP 1169, allows the landlord to file proof of service of the summons and complaint with the
clerk simultaneously at the time the clerk enters a default judgment, assuming, of course, that the
tenant has failed to appear and defend the unlawful detainer action. The bill seeks to change this
by requiring the landlord to file proof of service of the summons and complaint with the clerk
prior to the time the clerk enters a default judgment. According to the author, abuse of service of
process by some process servers and unscrupulous landlords is still a problem, and this measure
would help reduce such abuse and ensure that the tenant has actual service of the summons and
complaint before it is too late and a default judgment has been entered. As proposed to be
amended, this bill would require entry of default judgment to occur at least 10 calendar days (not
14 days, as currently in print) after proof of service of the summons and complaint has been filed
with the court clerk. Landlords or their agents would no longer be able to execute both of these
tasks on the same visit, possibly necessitating a second trip to the court clerk in that time period,
unless the court in question is one of the increasing number of courts in the state that allows
electronic filing.

Harmonizing timelines for use of third party subpoenas in eviction cases. Because unlawful
detainer is a summary proceeding in California, many discovery timelines are abbreviated in
eviction cases. Problematically, however, the time for a third party deposition subpoena is not
currently shortened in eviction cases. According to the author, this results in both landlords and
tenants being unable to subpoena key witnesses with sufficient time to depose them prior to trial,
which in turn may prevent the discovery of important testimony or evidence. This bill would
shorten third-party deposition subpoenas in most situations to correspond with other eviction-
specific discovery timelines. At the time of this analysis, there appears to be no opposition
expressed by stakeholders to this particular component of the bill.

Enabling indigent fee waivers to be applied to witness fees. This bill seeks to apply the existing
court fee waiver process to third-party witness fees, to ensure that low-income parties in eviction
cases may still produce their evidence and witnesses so that their inability to afford the witness
fees does not completely prevent them from doing so. The sponsors explain: "A tenant who is in
a dispute with his or her landlord over substandard housing conditions may need the code
enforcement officer who inspected the unit to come to court to testify. If the tenant cannot afford
to tender the witness fees in advance, the tenant won’t be able to get a critical witness to court,
which could mean the difference between winning and losing the case (and their home)."

Previous related legislation. AB 265 (Ammiano) of 2011 would have established a type of
"right to redemption" for tenants. Specifically, this bill would have given a tenant who has
received a three-day notice to quit-or-pay-rent the right to redeem the tenancy after the three-day
period has expired, by tendering rent due and other fees and costs, as specified. AB 265 was
approved by this Committee, but died on the Assembly Floor before receiving a vote.
AB 2343
Page 10

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Western Center on Law & Poverty (co-sponsor)


California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation (co-sponsor)
AIDS Healthcare Foundation
California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund
City of Berkeley Rent Stabilization Program
City of Santa Monica
Disability Rights California
Legal Aid Association of California
Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles
Legal Aid Society of San Diego
Tenants Together
YIMBY Action

Opposition

Apartment Association, California Southern Cities


Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles
Apartment Association of Orange County
California Apartment Association
California Association of Realtors
California Building Industry Association
California Chamber of Commerce
Civil Justice Association of California
East Bay Rental Housing Association
North Valley Property Owners Association
San Diego County Apartment Association
Santa Barbara Rental Property Association

Analysis Prepared by: Anthony Lew / JUD. / (916) 319-2334

You might also like