Rental Housing Owners Ass'n v. City of Hayward
200 Cal. App. 4th 81
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- RHOA petitioned for writ of mandate after judgment in its favor, seeking to enjoin Hayward from enforcing MIP; the trial court held the ordinance facially invalid for forcing landlord access without tenant consent under Civil Code 1954 and the Fourth Amendment.
- City amended the ordinance in response to the writ and in turn, RHOA objected, contending the amendments did not cure constitutional defects; the trial court sustained two objections, finding the amendments still made landlords responsible for tenant consent and allowed penalties for tenant refusals.
- Appellate court vacated the trial court’s order, remanding to enter a new order consistent with its decision; the opinion reviews de novo the amended text of the ordinance and its conformance with state law and constitutional standards.
- The MIP is part of Hayward’s rental housing inspection program; original §9-5.302 required owners/managers to allow inspections (with warrants if consent is refused); §9-5.306 required consent of owner/occupant for entry; §9-5.401/9-5.503 govern fees and hearings.
- After amendments, §9-5.306 was reframed as “Notice and Entry,” adding a good faith obligation to obtain tenant consent and notice requirements; fines/penalties related to entry are limited to two scenarios (owner absent, improper rescheduling).
- The court ultimately held the amended ordinance facially valid, rejecting RHOA’s agency, Fourth Amendment, and Civil Code 1954 challenges to the good faith/consent framework and attributing no general violation to substantive due process in its fee structure; it remanded for a new order consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the amended ordinance facially valid despite prior challenges? | RHOA contends the good faith/consent requirements create improper agency and violate Civil Code 1954 and the Fourth Amendment. | City argues amendments cure defects; consent/warrant framework remains consistent with law. | Yes; the amended ordinance is facially valid. |
| Does the good faith requirement create an impermissible agency relationship? | Good faith obligation makes landlords act as City agents, violating agency law. | No bilateral agency is formed; good faith is not an agency creation. | No agency preemption; not facially invalid. |
| Do the fee/penalty provisions violate substantive due process? | Penalties against landlords for tenant noncooperation are arbitrary and irrelevant to landlord conduct. | Penalties are limited and tied to landlord notice/entry violations; not imposed for tenant noncompliance in most cases. | Not facially invalid on substantive due process grounds. |
| Did the trial court properly sustain objections and require cure or disposal? | Trial court correctly identified defects. | Amendments cured defects; trial court erred. | Vacated; remanded for a new order consistent with the opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tobe v. City of Santa Ana, 9 Cal.4th 1069 (1995) (facial challenge standard and deference to validity)
- Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 4 Cal.4th 893 (1993) (preemption and scope of local ordinances vs. general laws)
- Alviso v. Sonoma County Sheriff’s Dept., 186 Cal.App.4th 198 (2010) (applied standard for facial challenges to local ordinances)
- Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood Apartments, 171 Cal.App.4th 1004 (2009) ( Civil Code 1954 context and entry rights in housing)
- Arcadia Unified School Dist. v. State Dept. of Education, 2 Cal.4th 251 (1992) (facial challenge and application of presumptions)
- Gray v. Whitmore, 17 Cal.App.3d 1 (1971) (substantive due process considerations)