The California Apartment Association’s legal battle against Pasadena’s rent control law, Measure H, drew spirited questioning in the Court of Appeal this month, as justices signaled skepticism about some of CAA’s constitutional claims while showing stronger interest in arguments that key provisions of the law are preempted by state housing statutes.
CAA’s case
CAA’s lawsuit, filed after voters approved Measure H in 2022, challenges the measure on three fronts:
Charter overhaul: CAA argues that Measure H was improperly adopted as a charter “amendment” when in reality it amounted to a wholesale “revision.” The measure nearly doubled the length of Pasadena’s charter and created a new rent board with significant independent powers — changes that, under the state constitution, can only be made by the City Council or a charter commission.
Unbalanced rent board: The measure reserves seven of 11 board seats for tenants while excluding most housing providers. CAA argues this structure all but guarantees landlords will be outvoted, raising constitutional concerns about equal protection under the law.
Conflict with state law: CAA also contends that Measure H collides with state housing law by (1) requiring relocation assistance payments to tenants moving out after rent increases, even for units exempt from rent control under the Costa-Hawkins Act; and (2) mandating landlords serve a “written notice to cease” before issuing the standard three-day notice to pay or quit, effectively altering the eviction process set by state law.
Justices skeptical, but engaged
At oral argument, the justices were candid about their views. Justice John Segal criticized the rent board’s structure, calling it “the most unfair, discriminatory rent stabilization board that I’ve ever seen. Every vote’s going to be seven to four. You might as well have it say, ‘look, every time there’s an issue, tenants win.’” Still, he concluded, “the legislature can do unfair things. I don’t really see any argument that persuades me that there’s something unconstitutional.”
The court’s sharper questioning came on the preemption issues. Justice Natalie Stone pressed Pasadena’s counsel on the relocation assistance mandate, suggesting it “deter[s] a landlord from freely exercising their rights” under Costa-Hawkins. Justice Segal followed with a comparison that drew attention in the courtroom: “It’s like a tariff.”
The panel also probed CAA’s argument against the “notice to cease” requirement, asking whether Pasadena had improperly inserted its own rules into eviction timelines already governed by state law.
Supplemental briefing ordered
After the hearing, the Court of Appeal issued an order requiring the parties to submit supplemental briefs by Sept. 24 specifically on the relocation assistance issue. The court asked for analysis of how Costa-Hawkins and AB 1482 interact with Pasadena’s mandate.
This unusual step highlights the panel’s interest in whether Measure H’s relocation assistance provision is legally defensible.
What’s next
The appellate court’s decision will determine whether Pasadena can enforce some of Measure H’s most burdensome provisions and could set precedent for rent control policies across California.
CAA will continue to fight in court to ensure that rental housing providers are not subject to unfair and unlawful requirements under local rent control laws.
