The California Apartment Association has filed its supplemental brief with the California Court of Appeal in its ongoing challenge to Pasadena’s rent control law, Measure H.

The filing comes in response to the appellate court’s unusual request for additional briefing following oral argument earlier this month. At that hearing, justices expressed keen interest in whether Measure H’s relocation assistance mandate conflicts with state housing statutes, particularly the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act and the Tenant Protection Act, also known as Assembly Bill 1482.

In its new brief, CAA argues that Pasadena’s relocation payment requirement is preempted by state law. The association maintains that the Costa-Hawkins Act gives landlords the right to set rents on properties exempt from local rent control and that cities may not penalize housing providers for exercising those rights. CAA further contends that when a tenant chooses to move out after a lawful rent increase, that departure is not an eviction that cities are authorized to regulate. The brief also emphasizes that AB 1482 does not expand local authority under Costa-Hawkins, nor does it authorize relocation mandates tied to rent increases on exempt units. 

“The relocation payment requirement effectively punishes property owners for doing something that state law expressly allows,” CAA’s brief states, arguing that Measure H’s provision “has no logical connection” to legitimate local authority over evictions and instead interferes with the state’s comprehensive regulation of rent-setting. 

Pasadena and the tenant intervenors take a sharply different view in their own supplemental filings. Attorneys for the city argue that the relocation assistance provision falls squarely within a local government’s power to “regulate or monitor the basis for eviction,” as reserved under Costa-Hawkins. They characterize Measure H’s payments as a reasonable way to mitigate the impacts of displacement when tenants are forced to move because of large rent increases.  

The intervenors, representing tenant advocates, echo that argument, asserting that rent hikes that effectively drive tenants out of their homes amount to “constructive evictions.” They contend that relocation payments simply help those tenants secure new housing in a high-cost market and are consistent with both state and local law.  

With all supplemental briefs now filed, the case is fully submitted and awaits a decision by the Court of Appeal.