McHugh v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd.
Decision Date | 17 August 1989 |
Citation | 777 P.2d 91,261 Cal.Rptr. 318,49 Cal.3d 348 |
Parties | , 777 P.2d 91 Haidy McHUGH, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SANTA MONICA RENT CONTROL BOARD, Defendant and Appellant; Linda L. SMITH et al., Real Parties in Interest and Respondents; Helen McClellan et al., Interveners and Respondents. L.A. 32062. |
Court | California Supreme Court |
Joel M. Levy, Ralph H. Goldsen, Barbara O'Hearn, Marla Kraus, Barbara Greenstein, Michael Heumann, Santa Monica, Stephen P. Wiman, Marsha Jones Moutrie, Los Angeles, Dennis M. Mullen and Rhodes, Maloney, Hart, Mullen, Jakle & Watters, Santa Monica, for defendant and appellant.
No appearance for real parties in interest.
Christopher M. Harding and Lawrence & Harding, Santa Monica, for plaintiff/respondent.
Marsha N. Cohen as amicus curiae on behalf of defendant and appellant.
Thomas A. Seaton, Oakland, as Amicus Curiae on behalf of respondent.
In this appeal we consider whether a provision of the Santa Monica Rent Control Charter Amendment (art. XVIII, Santa Monica City Charter, hereafter Charter Amendment) which provides for administrative adjudication of excess rent claims and imposition of treble damages (id., former 1 § 1809, subd. (b)) is unconstitutional because it permits the Santa Monica Rent Control Board (Board) to exercise judicial powers in violation of article VI, section 1 of the California Constitution.
We will conclude that administrative adjudication of excess rent claims under the Charter Amendment does not, in and of itself, violate the judicial powers clause. We will hold, however, that imposition of treble damages is a power beyond the Board's authority. We will also conclude that, on the facts of this case, the Board's order, which authorizes immediate rent withholding, violates the judicial powers clause.
In April 1979 the voters of the City of Santa Monica adopted by initiative a rent control ordinance to be administered by the Board. The Charter Amendment gives the Board power to promulgate pertinent regulations, and to hear and determine complaints of violations of the system as administered. ( §§ 1803, subd. (g); 1805, subd. (d); former § 1809, subd. (b).)
The Charter Amendment regulates the maximum allowable rents for controlled rental units and authorizes adjustments in maximum rents by way of both general (i.e., "across the board") and individual proceedings. ( §§ 1804, 1805.) Under section 1810, any violation of the Charter Amendment by a landlord constitutes a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $500 or imprisonment for not more than six months in county jail, or both. Under section 1811, the Board, tenants or landlords of controlled units may seek a court order enjoining violations of the rent control law.
In addition, section 1809 of the Charter Amendment permits a court action for damages. (Id., subds. (a) & (d).) At the time this case arose (see post, fn. 2), subdivision (a) of section 1809 provided: "Any landlord who demands, accepts, receives, or retains any payment of rent" in excess of the maximum allowed under the ordinance or the rules promulgated thereunder "shall be liable ... to the tenant ... for reasonable attorney's fees and costs as determined by the court, plus damages in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500) or three (3) times the amount by which the payment ... received or retained exceeds the maximum lawful rent, whichever is the greater."
Furthermore, former subdivision (b) of section 1809 established an alternative administrative remedy: This latter subdivision, with its provision for administrative adjudication of "excess rents," is the focus of our inquiry. 2
Section 1808 provides for review of the Board's decision. "A landlord or tenant aggrieved by any action or decision of the Board may seek judicial review by appealing to the appropriate court within the jurisdiction." The method of "appeal" utilized has been the filing of a petition for writ of administrative mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5.
Two tenants, Smith and Plevka, filed an administrative complaint under the Charter Amendment, asserting plaintiff McHugh had charged them excess rent. After a hearing officer made initial determinations and orders, all parties appealed to the Board. The Board held the tenants had been overcharged, and awarded restitution of excess rent as well as treble damages. It expressly authorized Plevka (who remained in possession of the rental unit) to withhold $2,797.91, calculated as follows: $2,448 in treble damages ($816 for excess rent charged before the hearing examiner's findings, multiplied by three) plus $252 (excess rent charged after the hearing examiner's findings) plus $97.91 (interest on excess rents). The Board's order further stated, "The withheld amounts shall not form the basis for an unlawful detainer proceeding based upon non-payment of rent." (See § 1806, subd. (a).) The Board ruled that Smith (who had since vacated the rental unit) was entitled to total recovery of $1,593.08, calculated as follows: $1,411.50 in treble damages ($470.50 in excess rent charged before the hearing examiner's findings, multiplied by three) plus $130 (excess rent charged after the hearing examiner's findings) plus $51.58 (interest on excess rents).
Plaintiff filed a petition for writ of mandate (Code Civ.Proc., § 1094.5) pursuant to section 1808. Subsequently, other landlords were permitted to file a complaint in intervention. Plaintiff's petition sought to compel the Board to set aside its decision on the ground that administrative adjudication of "excess rents" under former section 1809, subdivision (b), violates, inter alia, the judicial powers clause of the California Constitution. (Art. VI, § 1.) Plaintiff also sought to enjoin the Board from acting on any complaints for excess rent under the former subdivision. The intervening landlords sought not only similar declaratory and injunctive relief, but also a declaration that interveners had a constitutional right to jury trial in any "case" for damages or penalties.
After a hearing, the trial court granted plaintiff's and interveners' motions for summary judgment and entered judgment granting the petition for writ of mandate. It issued a peremptory writ ordering the Board to vacate the Plevka and Smith decisions, and declared former section 1809, subdivision (b), of the Charter Amendment "invalid because it requires the ... Board to exercise judicial powers which fall within the ambit of Article VI, Section 1, of the California Constitution." The court issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the Board from proceeding on any pending or future complaint for excess rents under the former subdivision, and declared the Board's regulations invalid insofar as they implemented the former subdivision, but did not address interveners' jury trial claim. The Board appealed.
Article VI, section 1 of the California Constitution provides: "The judicial power of this State is vested in the Supreme Court, courts of appeal, superior courts, municipal courts, and justice courts...." Despite the breadth of that statement, various administrative agencies in this state are authorized by the Constitution to exercise judicial powers. Some of these agencies are created by the Constitution, and are thereby vested with certain judicial powers (e.g., arts. XX, § 22 [Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control]; XII [Public Utilities Commission] ); others have been legislatively endowed with judicial powers pursuant to a specific constitutional authorization (see art. XIV, § 4 [Workers' Compensation Appeals Board]; id., § 1 [] ). 3 The authority of such agencies to exercise judicial powers is not at issue here.
We have often noted that agencies not vested by the Constitution with judicial powers may not exercise such powers. (Strumsky v. San Diego County Retirement Assn. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 28, 42, 112 Cal.Rptr. 805, 520 P.2d 29, italics in original.) 4 In this case we must determine whether the challenged Charter Amendment provision unconstitutionally authorizes the Board to exercise "judicial powers" within the meaning of article VI, section 1.
Almost 50 years ago we held an ostensibly similar grant of power to an administrative agency unconstitutional under article VI, section 1. (Jersey Maid Milk Products Co. v. Brock (1939) 13 Cal.2d 620, 651-652, 91 P.2d 577; see also Pacific Coast Casualty Co. v. Pillsbury (1915) 171 Cal. 319, 322, 153 P. 24 [ ][dictum]; Western Metal Supply Co. v. Pillsbury (1916) 172 Cal. 407, 411-413, 156 P. 491 [same] [dictum].) Plaintiff asserts Jersey Maid controls this case, and requires that we affirm the trial court. As we explain below, however, we decline to apply Jersey Maid 's holding to the challenged remedial powers in this case.
Jersey Maid involved a broad constitutional challenge to the Milk Stabilization Act. In creating the act, the Legislature expressly...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
AIU Ins. Co. v. Superior Court
...We too have recognized a distinction between restitution and compensatory damages. (See McHugh v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd., supra, 49 Cal.3d at p. 363, 261 Cal.Rptr. 318, 777 P.2d 91 [maj. opn.]; id. at p. 387, 261 Cal.Rptr. 318, 777 P.2d 91 [Panelli, J., conc.].) Reimbursement can rea......
-
Lusardi Construction Co. v. Aubry
...is a public work impermissibly intrudes on judicial powers under the standards set forth in McHugh v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd. (1989) 49 Cal.3d 348, 261 Cal.Rptr. 318, 777 P.2d 91. We do not In McHugh v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd., supra, 49 Cal.3d 348, 261 Cal.Rptr. 318, 777 P.2d 9......
-
California Teachers Assn. v. State of California
...administrative determinations in order to avoid an unlawful delegation of judicial power. (See McHugh v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd. (1989) 49 Cal.3d 348, 361, 261 Cal.Rptr. 318, 777 P.2d 91.)7 Section 44944(e) states in part:"In the event that the decision of the commission is finally re......
-
Bullock v. City and County of San Francisco
...v. City of Berkeley (1976) 17 Cal.3d 129, 130 Cal.Rptr. 465, 550 P.2d 1001; cf. Gov.Code, § 65590; McHugh v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd. (1989) 49 Cal.3d 348, 261 Cal.Rptr. 318, 777 P.2d 91.) We are obliged to conform to these constructions of federal constitutional requirements. (Auto Eq......
-
Executive review in the fragmented executive: state constitutionalism and same-sex marriage.
...(quoting Opinions of the Justices to the Senate, 363 N.E.2d 652,659 (Mass. 1977))). (126) See McHugh v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd., 777 P.2d 91, 110 (Cal. 1989) (holding that an administrative agency may adjudicate claims for restitution without usurping judicial power); Wright v. KECH-T......