Apartment Ass'n of L. A. Cnty., Inc. v. City of L. A.

• Decision Date: 25 August 2021
• Docket Number: No. 20-56251,20-56251
• Citation: 10 F.4th 905
• Parties: APARTMENT ASSOCIATION OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, INC., dba Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES ; Eric Garcetti, in his official capacity as Mayor of Los Angeles; City Council of the City of Los Angeles, in its official capacity; Does, 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants-Appellees, and Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment Action; Strategic Actions for a Just Economy, Intervenor-Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

10 F.4th 905

APARTMENT ASSOCIATION OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, INC., dba Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES ; Eric Garcetti, in his official capacity as Mayor of Los Angeles; City Council of the City of Los Angeles, in its official capacity; Does, 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants-Appellees,andAlliance of Californians for Community Empowerment Action; Strategic Actions for a Just Economy, Intervenor-Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-56251

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 12, 2021 Pasadena, California

Filed August 25, 2021

Doug J. Dennington (argued), Peter J. Howell, Kelsey Quist, and Jayson Parsons, Rutan & Tucker LLP, Irvine, California, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Jonathan H. Eisenman (argued), Deborah Breithaupt, Elaine Zhong, and Matthew A. Scherb, Deputy City Attorneys; David Michaelson, Chief Assistant City Attorney; Michael N. Feuer, City Attorney; Office of the City Attorney, Los Angeles, California; for Defendants-Appellees.

Rohit D. Nath (argued), Marc Seltzer, and Krysta Kauble Pachman, Susman Godfrey LLP, Los Angeles, California; Nisha N. Vyas and Richard Rothschild, Western Center on Law and Poverty, Los Angeles, California; Kathryn A. Eidmann, Faizah Malik, Gigi Lam, Alisa Randell, and Lauren Zack, Public Counsel, Los Angeles, California; Michael Rawson and Craig Castellanet, Public Interest Law Project, Oakland, California; for Intervenor-Defendants-Appellees.

June Babiracki Barlow, Senior Vice President and General Counsel; Neil D. Kalin and Jenny Li, Assistant General Counsel; California Association of Realtors, Los Angeles, California; for Amicus Curiae California Association of Realtors.

James R. Parrinello and Christopher E. Skinnell, Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross & Leoni, San Rafael, California, for Amicus Curiae California Apartment Association.

Ethan W. Blevins, Pacific Legal Foundation, Seattle, Washington, for Amici Curiae El Papel LLC, Berman 2 LLC, Karvell Li, and Pacific Legal Foundation.

Lucia Choi, Tiffany L. Nocon, and Navneet K. Grewal, Disability Rights California, Los Angeles, California, for Amici Curiae Disability Rights California, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, and Disability Rights Legal Center.

Celia Meza, Acting Corporation Counsel; Benna Ruth Solomon, Stephen J. Kane, and Rebecca Hirsch, Assistant Corporation Counsel; City of Chicago Department of Law, Chicago, Illinois; Jonathan B. Miller and LiJia Gong, Public Rights Project, Oakland, California; Yibin Shen, City Attorney, Alameda, California; Esteban A. Aguilar Jr., City Attorney, Albuquerque, New Mexico; Anne L. Morgan, City Attorney, Austin, Texas; Farimah Faiz Brown, City Attorney, Berkeley, California; Nancy E. Glowa, City Solicitor, Cambridge, Massachusetts; Cheryl Watson Fisher, City Solicitor, Chelsea, Massachusetts; Zach Klein, City Attorney, Columbus, Ohio; Christopher J. Caso, City Attorney, Dallas, Texas; Barbara J. Doseck, City Attorney, Dayton, Ohio; Rodney Pol Jr., City Attorney, Gary, Indiana; Cara E. Silver, Interim City Attorney, Menlo Park, California; Barbara J. Parker, City Attorney, Oakland, California; Robert Taylor, Interim City Attorney, Portland, Oregon; Susana Alcala Wood, City Attorney, Sacramento, California; James R. Williams, Santa Clara County Counsel, San Jose, California; George S. Cardona, Interim City Attorney, Santa Monica, California; Lyndsey M. Olson, City Attorney, Saint Paul, Minnesota; Peter S. Holmes, City Attorney, Seattle, Washington; Francis X. Wright Jr., City Solicitor, Somerville, Massachusetts; Judith R. Baumann, City Attorney, Tempe, Arizona; Delia Garza, Travis County Attorney, Austin, Texas; Michael Rankin, City Attorney, Tucson, Arizona; for Amici Curiae Local Governments.

Raymond P. Tolentino and Molly K. Webster, Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP, New York, New York, for Amici Curiae Constitutional Law Scholars.

Adrienna Wong, ACLU Foundation of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, for Amici Curiae UCLA Luskin Institute on Inequality & Democracy, UCLA Center for Neighborhood Knowledge, Professor Ananya Roy, and Professor Paul Ong.

Eric Dunn, National Housing Law Project, Richmond, Virginia, for Amicus Curiae National Housing Law Project.

Jamie Crooks, Elk Hills Research, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae American Medical Asosciation, California Medical Association, and Other Public Health Associations and Professionals.

David A. King Jr., Reichman Jorgensen LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae Southern California Association of Nonprofit Housing.

Eleanor Morton, Leonard Carder LLP, San Francisco, California, for Amicus Curiae United Teachers Los Angeles.

Robert Lapsley, President, California Business Roundtable, Sacramento, California, as and for Amicus Curiae.

Before: Jay S. Bybee and Daniel A. Bress, Circuit Judges, and Kathleen Cardone,^* District Judge.

BRESS, Circuit Judge:

Following the outbreak of COVID-19 in early 2020, the City of Los Angeles imposed an eviction moratorium with the stated purposes of ensuring housing security and promoting public health during the pandemic. The moratorium operates during a "Local Emergency Period" to bar certain evictions. Related provisions delay applicable tenants’ rent payment obligations and prohibit landlords from charging late fees and interest. Plaintiff, a trade association of Los Angeles landlords, sued the City, arguing that the moratorium and its related provisions violate the Constitution's Contracts Clause. U.S. Const. art. I, § 10, cl. 1. The district court denied plaintiff's request for preliminary injunctive relief, and plaintiff now appeals that ruling.

Other courts, including the Supreme Court, have recently considered a variety of constitutional and statutory challenges to COVID-19 eviction moratoria. The appeal before us, however, is limited only to the Contracts Clause. We hold that under modern Contracts Clause doctrine, the district court did not err in determining that the moratorium's provisions were likely "reasonable" and "appropriate" given the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. Whatever force plaintiff's challenge may have had in a much earlier era of Contracts Clause jurisprudence, more contemporary Supreme Court case law has severely limited the Contracts Clause's potency. And whatever other constitutional challenges plaintiff may seek to bring against the Los Angeles eviction moratorium, there is no apparent basis under modern cases to find the challenged provisions unconstitutional under the Contracts Clause—the only issue before us.

The district court thus did not abuse its discretion in concluding that plaintiff had not shown the required likelihood of success on the merits. We therefore affirm.

I

A

Following the spread of COVID-19 to the United States, the Secretary of Health and Human Services on January 31, 2020 declared a nationwide public health emergency. California's Governor likewise proclaimed a state of emergency some weeks later. Soon after that, and as relevant here, the City of Los Angeles enacted an ordinance imposing a series of restrictions on residential landlords. L.A., Cal., Ordinance No. 186,585 (Mar. 31, 2020). A subsequent ordinance created further restrictions. L.A., Cal., Ordinance No. 186,606 (May 12, 2020). We will refer to these ordinances, which subsequently were codified at sections 49.99 through 49.99.9 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, as the "eviction moratorium."

The eviction moratorium made plain its motivations and purpose. It described the City Council's finding that "[t]he COVID-19 pandemic threatens to undermine housing security and generate unnecessary displacement of City residents and instability of City businesses." L.A., Cal., Municipal Code § 49.99. It also referenced public health measures that called for many individuals to stay at home, as well as the loss of income and increased expenses anticipated as a result of governmental directives to "self-isolate" and shut down nonessential businesses. Id. Noting the relationship between housing and physical health during the pandemic, the City Council found it necessary to "take measures to protect public health, life, and property" by enacting the eviction moratorium. Id. ; L.A., Cal., Ordinance No. 186,585 pmbl.

To achieve these goals, the eviction moratorium curtails the rights of residential landlords in various ways. Most significantly, it substantially alters the grounds that landlords may invoke against tenants in eviction actions (known in California as "unlawful detainer" actions). Specifically, landlords are barred from "endeavor[ing] to evict or evict[ing] a residential tenant for" any of three reasons. L.A., Cal., Municipal Code § 49.99.2(A)–(C).

First , "[d]uring the Local Emergency Period and for 12 months after its expiration," tenants cannot be evicted "for non-payment of rent ... if the tenant is unable to pay rent due to circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic." Id. § 49.99.2(A). "[C]ircumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic" include:

loss of income due to a COVID-19 related workplace closure, child care expenditures due to school closures, health-care expenses related to being ill with COVID-19 or caring for a member of the tenant's household or family who is ill with COVID-19, or reasonable expenditures that stem from government-ordered emergency measures.

Id. Although these tenants’ payment obligations were deferred (an issue we discuss further below), the moratorium did not relieve tenants of their ultimate obligations to pay rent. Id.

Second , during the Local Emergency Period, tenants cannot be evicted for a "no-fault reason." Id. § 49.99.2(B). Those reasons include an owner or owner's family intending to occupy the property; withdrawal of the property from the rental market; the owner's compliance with laws or governmental orders requiring vacating of the property; and intent to demolish or remodel the property. Id. § 49.99.1(D); see also Cal. Civ. Code § 1946.2(b)(2). Fi...