This article was posted on Tuesday, Aug 01, 2023

A property manager and developer in Silicon Valley must refund tenants over $300,000.00 after being accused of raising rents beyond the limits of the law.

The settlement was announced by Attorney General Rob Bonta, after a year-and-a-half-long investigation by his office into the alleged violations of rent increases averaging 151% and the wrongful eviction of several tenants.

REMINDER:  AB 1482 limits rent increases at  5% plus the percentage change in the cost of living (CPI), or 10%, whichever is lower. It also protects tenants by requiring “just cause” for evictions.


Buena Park  – Tenants Receive Greater Protections for No-Fault Evictions

On June 6th, City Council Members voted 4-1 to adopt an ordinance prohibiting landlords from evicting tenants for renovations without first obtaining the necessary permits from the city.

- Advertisers -

It will require landlords to first get building or demolition permits before evicting a tenant on the basis of making substantial renovations or repairs to their property. Under this new ordinance(as it is currently written),  a renter can sue for up to $15,000 if a landlord knowingly evicts a tenant for renovations without the intention to follow through.

The new ordinance was to take effect 30 days after the vote.  For more information, visit


Property Management Company Being Sued Over Background Checks

Rental applicants in the Los Angeles area filed a lawsuit alleging that a property management company did not follow proper background check processes.

Nineteen prospective renters filed the suit in L.A. County Superior Court.  They had applied to move into buildings in Long Beach, Ontario, Mission Viejo, Playa del Rey, Rancho Santa Margarita and Lake Forest.

Background checks, like a credit report, can contain errors that could negatively affect the subject of the report. For this reason, California state law requires that people receive notice when these reports are being ordered for them and that subjects be given a chance to review the reports.

The plaintiffs in the case claim that the procedure for notifying them or supplying them with copies of these reports was not followed. They allege that the company also violated their privacy and are hoping to be awarded $10,000 for each investigative report that was created for them.