Two landlords filed a lawsuit challenging the state’s COVID-19 ban on eviction proceedings, alleging that the Judicial Council does not have the authority to issue such a ruling.
Retirees Peggy Christensen and Peter Martin sued the California Judicial Council in the Superior Court of California in Kern County with the assistance of the Pacific Legal Foundation over Emergency Rule 1, which suspends indefinitely the rights of property owners to initiate legal actions involving unlawful detainment.
“The Judicial Council determined as a matter of policy that tenants should be immunized from eviction in virtually all cases,” wrote attorney Michael Poon in the complaint. “The rule therefore constitutes a legislative decision forbidden to the Judicial Council under the principle of separation of powers embodied in Article III, § 3, of the California Constitution.”
Article III Section 3 states that officials who embody one power of either the legislature, executive or judicial cannot engage in either of the other two powers, according to the California Constitution.
“The Judicial Council doesn't have the authority to be making these decisions to begin with,” Poon told the Southern California Record. “It’s making policy determination, which is something that the judicial branch shouldn’t be doing at all.”
Emergency Rule 1 was issued on April 6, 2020 by the California Judicial Council in response to the coronavirus pandemic as part of 11 emergency rules of court.
“The rule creates the perverse incentive for all tenants, whether they face financial hardship or not, to refuse to pay their rent during the crisis,” Poon stated in the brief. “It immunizes from eviction even tenants who create nuisances, damage property, conduct illegal activity or violate lease terms. ER 1’s restrictions not only visit significant hardship on landlords like Petitioners but they are also unconstitutional.”
On March 27, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed an executive order empowering California’s Judicial Branch and it’s Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye to issue emergency court orders during the coronavirus pandemic, according to a press release.
The Judicial Council is the ultimate administrative and rulemaking body for courts in the state as set out by its constitution.
“It should come from the legislature within the confines of all the constitutional restriction and maybe in limited circumstances where there's a real need, the governor could be the one who makes this decision within constitutional confines, but certainly nothing permitted the Judicial Council to do this,” Poon said.
Gov. Newsom initially created an eviction moratorium when he signed Executive Order N 37 20 on March 4, 2020. But when the Judicial Council extended it, the ban was expanded.
“Governor Newsom’s moratorium was much more tailored than what the Judicial Council issued,” said Poon. “It was restricted to coronavirus cases. It had a limited timeline and these are things that are completely missing from Emergency Rule 1, which is broader and has no deadline.”
The relief requested in Christensen v. California Judicial Council includes compensatory damages and a pre-emptory writ of mandate directing the Judicial Council to rescind Emergency Rule 1.
"Who is going to protect these landlords from bad actors," Poon said. "Of course, everyone knows that there are people suffering real hardship cases who are in a difficult position with regard to the virus but if you don't have the tool of eviction available to landlords for any cases, there's nothing stopping bad actors from taking advantage of good landlords who have no recourse."