AAGLA Roundup: News, Resources & Industry Updates

Court Rule Could Make Evictions More Time-Consuming and More Costly

A New Superior Court General Order May Impact Cases in Litigation, Including Evictions.

California’s Code of Civil Procedure, Section 170.6, allows a party in a lawsuit to file one peremptory challenge per case to disqualify an assigned judge if the peremptory challenge was made within a required time frame. This meant that if an eviction case was assigned to a judge who was believed to be biased against a particular defendant or plaintiff – let’s use landlords as an example here – or if it was believed a judge was not properly applying the law, a party seeking to disqualify a judge could timely file a Section 170.6 challenge and have the case reassigned to another judge.

The peremptory challenge is an important procedure that helps protect a litigant party from potential adverse consequences in their cases. This challenge can also apply later in the case when, for example, the case has been litigated for several months and is subsequently assigned to a new judge or department for a jury trial. In this situation, under appropriate circumstances, a party can file a Section 170.6 challenge to seek reassignment when concerns about the reassigned judge exist.

However, the Superior Court’s new General Order changes the procedure for filing a peremptory (a/k/a Section 170.6) challenge significantly. Going forward, a party or attorney seeking to challenge a judge’s assignment under Section 170.6 is required to submit a declaration or oral attestation identifying prior 170.6 challenges made during the previous year against that same judge in addition to providing information containing the approximate total number of cases assigned to that particular judge during that past time period. The new rule is intended to address what the courts view as “bad faith blanket challenges” against specific judges.

In practice, however, this means that peremptory challenges under Section 170.6 are more likely to receive closer scrutiny and may also be rejected. If the court or another party objects to the challenge, the Section 170.6 challenge may then be set for a hearing, which could result in trial delays, increased litigation costs, and the possibility that the challenge may ultimately be denied. This procedural change will likely have a meaningful impact on eviction cases, particularly where certain judges or departments are perceived as being unfavorable to landlords.

L.A. Mayoral Candidates Square Off in August 19th Debate

Contributed by Vibrant L.A.

Welcome to election season. Elections are starting to heat up. On August 19th in Sherman Oaks, Angelenos got their first real look at the race for the next Mayor of Los Angeles, which will be decided this coming November. Hosted by the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association, most experts felt that the mayoral debate had a negligible impact on voters. Few people watch an entire debate, especially at the local level, and despite the pre-debate hype, Los Angeles mayoral debates tend to be "one-day stories" in terms of news coverage. However, this debate did reveal how the candidates plan to wage political war through election day.

During his 1980 campaign for President, Ronald Reagan famously asked voters, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" That's what challenger Nithya Raman has been asking in 2026: "You've been the mayor for four years, and the results have not changed—the results are visible on our streets."

On homelessness, which increased during 2025, and on infrastructure and basic city services, Raman slammed Mayor Bass’ performance: "This contract gave raises to [LAPD] that our city couldn't afford, and we suffered as a result. We cut street lighting; we cut pothole repair." Then, on overall leadership, Raman continued: “Right now at City Hall, no one is in charge."

Unsurprisingly, Bass defended her record and said she has taken on longstanding challenges to reduce homelessness over her entire term, as well as achieved historic reductions in crime. Of more interest to political observers was her clear focus on Councilmember Raman’s missing thousands of votes during her time on the Council. Bass asserted: "You have missed several thousand votes because you don't show up to work.”

On that same subject, the Mayor criticized Councilmember Raman as talking from "both sides of her mouth" and having no support from her colleagues: "You've been at City Hall twice as long as I have. I realize you want to pitch yourself as somebody from the outside..." Bass said. "She has no support from the [other] councilmembers because nobody can work with her."

She also homed in on Councilmember Raman's record of opposing police hiring. With poll after poll finding that an overwhelming majority of voters feel Los Angeles is headed in the wrong direction or is otherwise on the “wrong track,” it is in Bass' favor to make this race not a referendum on her record, but a choice between two people—with the challenger being an unfit alternative. This election street fight will continue to unfold.

Survey Says: Violence, Threats, and Harassment Growing Part of Being a Rental Housing Provider

According to a recent survey authored by the San Diego Area-based Southern California Rental Housing Association, violence, threats, and harassment are becoming a growing challenge in rental housing communities across Southern California. The survey found that in the past five years, 76% of respondents experienced threats, harassment, intimidation, violence, or other actions that raised safety concerns, affecting not only housing providers but also residents, staff, contractors, and overall operations.

The survey was conducted in July 2026 in response to growing concerns about safety on rental properties, including a recent Chula Vista homicide in which a housing provider's daughter was fatally stabbed during an alleged dispute with a tenant. The survey results, representing 133 Southern California Rental Housing Association member businesses, provide a snapshot of how housing providers say violence and intimidation are affecting rental communities. At a time when there are several initiatives across the state seeking to limit the extent to which landlords can screen tenant applicants through background checks, the data provides a stark reminder that violence in apartment communities is not an abstract problem – it is a stark reality.

Some of the key survey findings include:

• 65% of respondents said hostile or threatening tenant behavior has become more common over the past five years. And 76% reported experiencing threats, harassment, intimidation, violence, or other actions that created safety concerns on a rental property. A property manager who responded to the survey said that after a resident made threats by email, “I was nervous to walk to my car, clean the laundry room, pick up trash ... anything I normally do no longer felt safe.”
• 74% said property managers or leasing staff were affected by an incident, while 68% said other tenants were affected.
• 64% of staff at rental properties often or sometimes feel unsafe. One respondent to the survey, a property manager, said they had been “brutally assaulted” by a tenant, and that the injury required reconstructive surgery.
• 67% of respondents have had tenants report feeling unsafe often or sometimes in the rental property due to another tenant’s behavior.
• Of those who experienced incidents at their properties: (i) verbal harassment or threats were most common, occurring in 93% of incidents; (ii) 25% of incidents involved physical violence; (iii) 45% of incidents resulted in law enforcement being called; (iv) 74% said legal or regulatory requirements delayed removing a tenant whose behavior created safety concerns; and (v) 65% said that led to other tenants complaining or moving because they no longer felt safe.

The survey is intended to inform a broader conversation about the importance of safety in rental communities. The Southern California Rental Housing Association has urged policymakers to promote respectful public dialogue, preserve lawful tenant screening practices, and address court delays that can leave tenants, neighbors, and housing providers waiting months for dangerous situations to be resolved.