Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Borten v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 14, 2006No. B181840Published

1Concurrence

ROTHSCHILD, J., Concurring.

I write separately because my reasons for rejecting Borten’s arguments differ from the majority’s. In my view, Borten’s due process challenge fails because the application of the anti-eviction provisions to nonresident renters is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose.

First, Borten errs when she assumes that in order to survive due process review, the anti-eviction provisions must be rationally related to the stated purpose of the rent control law (i.e., providing affordable housing for residents). Under rational basis review, all that is required is…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Federal Communications Commission v. Beach Communications, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
  2. Birkenfeld v. City of BerkeleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  3. Bisno v. Santa Monica Rent Control BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API