The California Apartment Association’s Legal Fund helps the association take on court cases with significant implications for rental housing providers’ rights and members’ bottom line.

Your gift funds the legal resources CAA needs to pursue that work.

Four current cases show the stakes for rental housing providers. Here is where each stands.

Gas-appliance phaseout litigation

CAA and a broad coalition of housing, business, labor and other industry groups are challenging South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 1146.2, which requires the phaseout of certain gas-fired water heaters, boilers and process heaters across much of Southern California. The coalition argues the rule is preempted by the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act and conflicts with the 9th Circuit’s earlier decision striking down Berkeley’s natural gas ban.

A divided 9th Circuit panel upheld the rule in July 2026.

“The majority is bucking the 9th Circuit’s own precedent,” said Whitney Prout, CAA’s executive vice president of legal affairs. “This rule may be framed as an emissions standard, but as Judge Lee recognized in his dissent, its practical effect is to force covered gas appliances out of the market — which is exactly what the Berkeley decision found preempted.”

The rule is already taking effect, with the first compliance deadline for existing buildings arriving in 2029. Converting from gas to electric equipment often requires major infrastructure work, including costly electrical panel upgrades and equipment relocation. CAA and its coalition partners are now seeking en banc review — a rehearing before a larger panel of 9th Circuit judges. Your gift to the Legal Fund helps pay for that next stage of the fight.

Pasadena rent control litigation

CAA’s lawsuit challenging Pasadena’s Measure H produced an important Costa-Hawkins victory for housing providers. The Court of Appeal ruled that Pasadena cannot require housing providers to pay relocation assistance when tenants move out after a lawful rent increase on units not subject to local rent control, finding the mandate conflicts with the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act. On April 1, 2026, the California Supreme Court denied petitions for review and requests to depublish the opinion, leaving CAA’s win intact and available for other courts to cite.

That precedent is already shaping other cases: in a pending challenge to a similar rent-increase-triggered relocation mandate in Los Angeles, the Court of Appeal has asked for supplemental briefing on how the Pasadena ruling affects the legality of the city’s ordinance — exactly the kind of ripple effect CAA aims for when it takes a case to court.

The merits are resolved, but the Pasadena case has entered its final phase: a dispute over attorney’s fees and costs.

Alameda County eviction-moratorium litigation

CAA’s longest-running active legal effort challenges Alameda County’s COVID-era eviction moratorium, one of the longest and most restrictive in the country. For three years, the county broadly prohibited evictions for nonpayment of rent and did not require renters to demonstrate a COVID-related hardship. It also permanently eliminated eviction as a remedy for rent debt that accumulated during the covered period.

CAA argues that the moratorium violated the Fifth Amendment by requiring housing providers to continue tenancies despite nonpayment without just compensation being provided by the county. After the trial court dismissed the case, CAA appealed to the 9th Circuit. Briefing is complete, and the association is awaiting oral argument. The Legal Fund helps CAA sustain consequential cases like this through years of litigation and appeal.

Smith v. City of Oakland — Costa-Hawkins ADA case

In Smith v. City of Oakland, renters with mobility disabilities argue that Oakland’s rent control program unlawfully limits their access to rent-controlled, accessible units because the program covers only housing built before 1983. If the court accepts that theory, the case could affect rent-controlled cities statewide. CAA has filed an amicus brief opposing the theory and is awaiting a ruling from the district court.

As Prout told members at the association’s mid-year meeting, the goal in every case CAA takes on is a ruling that reaches past the immediate parties: “A successful challenge to a local ordinance in one city can help protect housing providers well beyond that city or that county.”

CAA will continue working to protect rental housing providers’ rights as these cases develop. Your gift helps fund the legal resources that work requires. Donate to CAA’s Legal Fund.