Complaint for Injunction and Writ of Mandamus
1
2
3
Pauline Abbott, Esq. (95309)
LAW OFFICES OF PAULINE ABBOTT
1234 Scenic Avenue, Suite 1206
Vista View, California 94555
510-555-1234
4
5
6
Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
Rental Housing Association
of Seaview County
7
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
9
COUNTY OF SEAVIEW
10
11
12
RENTAL HOUSING ASSOCIATION
OF SEAVIEW COUNTY,
a California Corporation,
13
14
Plaintiff/Petitioner,
15
16
v.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
CITY OF SEAVIEW, CITY
SEAVIEW CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF
SEAVIEW RESIDENTIAL RENT AND
RELOCATION BOARD,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No.
COMPLAINT FOR
TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER,
PRELIMINARY AND
PERMANENT
INJUNCTIONS,
DECLARATORY RELIEF,
AND PETITION FOR
ALTERNATIVE
WRIT AND WRIT OF
MANDATE
)
)
)
)
Defendants/Respondents.
)
___________________________________________/
Plaintiff/petitioner alleges:
ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
24
25
1. Plaintiff/petitioner Rental Housing Association of Seaview County (“RHASC” and
“plaintiff”) is a California corporation doing business in Seaview, California. It has been
____________________________
Lester v. Butler Cross-Complaint
1
Complaint for Injunction and Writ of Mandamus
1
in operation for about 60 years. RHASC is a trade association, made up of residential
2
rental property owners. It currently has almost 1550 members, the vast majority of whom
3
own rental property in Seaview. RHASC is a regional association affiliated with the
4
California Apartment Association (“CAA”). The profile of a typical RHASC member is
5
an older woman whose one to four rental units comprise a sole or major source of
6
income. There are approximately 84,000 rental units in Seaview; RHASC members
7
represent about 10,000 of those units.
8
9
10
2. RHASC members that own Seaview rental property banked increases throughout the
1990s, since the housing market, vacancy rates and stagnant economy did not permit
11
annual rent increases. The average landlord banked seven years of increases during the
12
1990s. Most landlords in Seaview banked significant amounts of rent increases within
13
the past 10 years, and many have banked increases for 10 years that they have not yet
14
taken.
15
16
17
3. As a result, a large majority of Seaview landlords deferred maintenance and cut expenses,
or merely subsidized tenants to assure continuing occupancy. Within the past two years
the vacancy rate has diminished, and the economy has improved, such that rents can be
18
increased. Landlords were and are relying on banked increases to increase rents to make
19
up for the lack of increases in the past ten years or more. Landlords are also relying on
20
their ability to obtain rent increases for increased debt service, capital improvements and
21
22
other expenses as they purchase, improve, and re-rent their units.
23
4. At all times relevant herein, respondents have been and are the City of Seaview, and its
24
governing body, the City of Seaview City Council, and the City of Seaview Housing
25
Residential Rents and Relocation Board (aka Residential Rent Arbitration Board,
____________________________
Lester v. Butler Cross-Complaint
2
Complaint for Injunction and Writ of Mandamus
1
hereinafter “Board”), which is the agency charged with administering the provisions of
2
the City of Seaview Residential Rent Arbitration Ordinance.
3
4
5
5. Virtually all of the Seaview units owned by RHASC members are subject to the City of
Seaview Residential Rent Arbitration Ordinance.
6. On March 25, 2004 defendants City of Seaview and City Council amended the (rent law
6
name), ordinance number 12273. A copy of ordinance number 12273 is attached hereto
7
by reference and incorporated as if set forth in full. The ordinance purports to have gone
8
9
10
11
12
into effect on May 1, 2004. The Ordinance is in part self-enforcing since lack of
compliance is a defense to unlawful detainers against tenants to whom such notices have
been served.
7. Ordinance # 12273 requires landlords of Seaview properties to file all notices given
13
pursuant to CC section 1946 with defendant HRRRB within 10 days of service on the
14
tenant. It prohibits landlords who do so from resetting the rents on vacancy, and of
15
increasing the rents of annual rent adjustments and banked increases for two years. It
16
17
permits landlords to petition for increases for capital improvements, uninsured repair
costs, increased debt service and other reasons set forth in section 65.9 of the Ordinance.
18
8. The denial of annual adjustments violates the constitutions of the State of California and
19
the United States in that it prevents landlords from receiving a fair return, and annual
20
increases as required by law.
21
22
23
24
25
9. The denial of annual adjustments violates state law, which specifies the limits of local
jurisdictions to impose penalties for service of section 1946 notices.
10. Plaintiff/petitioner is informed therefore alleges that defendant/respondent HRRRB has a
backlog of decisions which have not yet been issued for hearings held in and decided on
____________________________
Lester v. Butler Cross-Complaint
3
Complaint for Injunction and Writ of Mandamus
1
the record in September 2003, and that any landlord filing a petition in May 2004 will
2
not have a hearing on that petition for at least a year, such that no decision would be
3
issued for another year, at which time a landlord or tenant could appeal the decision to
4
5
the HRRRB. Plaintiff/petitioner is informed that the ordinance will greatly increase the
numbers of petitions filed with the HRRRB, causing yet further delay. Such delay is a
6
violation of the rights of landlords to their annual adjustments and other increases. It also
7
interferes with the rights of landlords to contract, since landlords will have to choose
8
9
10
between petitioning the HRRRB for increases and re-renting their units as illegally
depressed rents.
11
11. The Ordinance also cannot be applied since the HRRRB has failed to develop the forms
12
necessary for landlord compliance. Until such notices have been developed for landlord
13
use, landlords are prevented from complying with the Ordinance, and effectively
14
precluded from prosecuting unlawful detainer actions. Landlords are also precluded from
15
compliance because the HRRRB has failed to adopt rules to protect tenant privacy as
16
17
required by the Ordinance, leaving landlords vulnerable to tenant claims of invasion of
privacy as landlords comply with the Ordinance, such as distributing notices of
18
termination to prospective tenants, posting them in units, and filing them in public files in
19
the rent board.
20
12. The denial of annual adjustments to all landlords filing section 1946 notices is ambiguous
21
22
23
since its language is contrary to the explicitly stated legislative intent of the Council
members who voted to adopt the amendment.
24
25
____________________________
Lester v. Butler Cross-Complaint
4
Complaint for Injunction and Writ of Mandamus
1
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
2
Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary and Permanent Injunctions
3
4
5
13. Plaintiff/petitioner demanded that the defendants/respondents City of Seaview and City
Council reject the Ordinance, but they refused. It has since requested of each
Councilmember that the Ordinance be amended to delete these illegal and void
6
provisions, but the Councilmembers have refused. The measure was ostensibly in effect
7
seven days after passage.
8
9
10
11
14. It is essential that the Court grant the relief requested to protect plaintiff/petitioner’s
members and all Seaview landlords from the enforcement of this Ordinance.
15. Defendants/respondents' wrongful conduct, unless and until enjoined and restrained by
12
order of this Court, is causing and will cause great and irreparable injury to
13
plaintiff/petitioner’s members and all Seaview landlords in that it is and will illegally
14
deprive them of rent increases to which they are otherwise entitled, permanently deprive
15
them of the ability to take prior rent increases that have been banked, deprive them of
16
17
18
their rights under California law to increase rents to subsequent tenants for two years all
without notice as required by law.
16. Plaintiff/petitioner and plaintiff/petitioner’s members and all Seaview landlords have no
19
adequate remedy at law for the injuries currently being suffered in that the amendment is
20
ostensibly law and is being enforced and self-enforced.
21
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
22
Declaratory Relief
23
24
25
17. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between plaintiff/ petitioner and
plaintiff/petitioner’s members and all Seaview landlords and defendants/respondents
____________________________
Lester v. Butler Cross-Complaint
5
Complaint for Injunction and Writ of Mandamus
1
concerning their respective rights and duties in that plaintiff/petitioner contends that the
2
enactment of the ordinance was illegal and contrary to legislative intent, that it illegally
3
and unconstitutionally deprives landlords of their rightful annual adjustments and other
4
5
increases, that it imposes an unreasonable and illegal delay on increases to be sought by
such landlords.
6
18. Defendants/respondents dispute these contentions and contend that the ordinance is a
7
valid exercise of their legislative and demonstrative authority.
8
9
10
19. Plaintiff/petitioner desires a judicial determination of landlord rights and duties, and a
declaration that the ordinance is illegal and unconstitutional.
11
20. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time under the circumstances in
12
order that plaintiff/petitioner may ascertain the rights and duties of its members and all
13
Seaview landlords. As long as the matter remains unresolved, all Seaview landlords will
14
be uncertain about their compliance, will be unable to comply and will be deprived of
15
increases to which they are entitled by constitutions and by law.
16
17
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
18
Alternative Writ and Writ of Mandamus
19
21. Defendants/respondents are required by the constitutions of the United States and
20
California to provide annual adjustments to landlords whose properties are subject to rent
21
22
23
24
25
controls, and to provide swift remedies and reasonable procedures for landlords who have
been deprived their increases, and to comply with state law.
22. Defendants/respondents therefore lack the jurisdiction and authority to impose the
provisions of this ordinance on landlords.
____________________________
Lester v. Butler Cross-Complaint
6
Complaint for Injunction and Writ of Mandamus
1
23. Plaintiff/petitioner and plaintiff/petitioner’s members and all Seaview landlords have no
2
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, other than the relief
3
sought in this petition, in that defendants/respondents have imposed this ordinance and
4
are enforcing it and allowing it to be self-enforced.
5
6
WHEREFORE, plaintiff/petitioner prays:
7
1. That the court issue a peremptory writ in the first instance commanding respondent to
8
9
10
refrain from any enforcement of the ordinance and to invalidate the ordinance; OR
2. That the court, alternatively, first issue an alternative writ commanding respondent to
11
refrain from any enforcement of the ordinance or, in the alternative, show cause why it
12
should not do so, and thereafter issue a peremptory writ commanding respondent to
13
refrain from enforcement of the ordinance, to invalidate the ordinance and to inform
14
landlords that the ordinance is void;
15
16
17
3. For a declaration that the ordinance is invalid, illegal, in excess of the jurisdiction and
authority of the defendants/respondents, and is void and of no force or effect;
4. For issuance of a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent
18
injunction restraining and enjoining defendant from enforcing the ordinance and ordering
19
them to invalidate the ordinance; AND/OR
20
5. For an order requiring defendants to show cause, if any they have, why they should not
21
22
23
24
be enjoined as set forth in this complaint, during the pendency of this action;
6. For a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and a permanent injunction,
all enjoining defendants, and each of them, and their agents, servants, and employees, and
25
____________________________
Lester v. Butler Cross-Complaint
7
Complaint for Injunction and Writ of Mandamus
1
all persons acting under, in concert with, or for them from enforcing the ordinance and
2
requiring them to invalidate the ordinance;
3
4
7. For attorney’s fees and costs of suit herein incurred;
8. For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper.
5
6
April 13, 2004
_________________________________
7
Pauline Abbott, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner Rental
Housing Association of Seaview County
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
____________________________
Lester v. Butler Cross-Complaint
8