Action Apartment Ass'n v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board
California Court of Appeal
[Opinion certified for partial publication.*]
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
MALLANO, J.
The City of Santa Monica requires landlords of residential rental property to place tenants’ security deposits in interest-bearing accounts at federally insured financial institutions. Since January 1, 1999, the city has required landlords to pay tenants 3 percent interest per year on security deposits.
A group of landlords filed this action, alleging that, due to market conditions, financial institutions are paying less than 3 percent on security deposits, and, as a result, landlords must make up the difference with their own funds. The landlords contend that this type of…
2Cases cited39 opinions
- Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Concrete Pipe & Products of Cal., Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern Cal.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Blank v. KirwanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
- Agins v. City of TiburonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Coachella Valley Mosquito & Vector Control District v. California Public Employment Relations BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 2005
- Lonely Maiden Productions v. Goldentree Asset ManagementCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- Cacho v. BoudreauCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
- Monks v. City of Rancho Palos VerdesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Small Property Owners v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.