Dear Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez, 

We, the undersigned public interest and tenant advocate attorneys of Los Angeles, write this open letter to express our deep concern about the stipulation that has been drafted in collaboration with your office as a proposed settlement for the 35 families of the Hillside Villa Tenants Association who are facing eviction. As attorneys who work with and represent tenants, many of us have drafted dozens or even hundreds of settlements in unlawful detainer matters. The “Stipulation for Dismissal” that tenants are now being asked to sign is among the most unfavorable, one-sided settlement deals we have ever seen. Few attorneys in good-conscience could recommend that their client sign such a document. We wish to communicate the extent to which this proposed settlement deviates from the standard practices of landlord-tenant law and sets a horrible precedent for all tenants in the city going forward.

Numerous procedural and substantive terms included in this stipulation are far worse than any settlement that would be commonly accepted in this area of law. This includes but is not limited to the following:

• The six year period for the court to retain jurisdiction under C.C.P. § 664.6: The court retaining jurisdiction for six years is unheard of in unlawful detainer settlements. Tenants are unlikely to be able to maintain representation for six years, the entirety of which they will be under the constant threat of eviction without trial for either a single missed payment or a trivial violation of the behavioral terms (see below). 

• Allowing the landlord to evict without any notice or opportunity to cure: Defendant tenants are also asked to give up their basic rights, enshrined in state law for over a century, to have an opportunity to cure a breach of the lease or default in the payment of rent before being evicted. Under this agreement, one single late payment of the rental debt will result in a family being evicted from their home. One single breach of the behavioral terms would result in the same. 

• Vague and unjustifiably prohibitive behavioral provisions: While many of us would refuse to accept any behavioral stipulation for our clients for such a “pay-and-stay” settlement, we find the provisions contained herein to be especially egregious. This agreement requires the Hillside Villa tenants to give up basic rights, protected by the Constitution of the United States, to organize and express themselves – no tenant should ever have to do this. Moreover, the prohibited behavior is so broadly and vaguely defined such that trivial, everyday activities could subject a family to being summarily evicted. For example, under the current proposed stipulation, playing music on speakers in any common area for a birthday party or other celebration would lead to immediate eviction; so too would recording any illegal or harassing activity by the plaintiff or its agents. Under well-established case law, such trivial “violations” as these could not lawfully serve as grounds for eviction even if they technically constituted a breach of the lease. Their inclusion here provides another example of how this stipulation empowers the landlord to evade otherwise established law regulating evictions.

• Eviction based on a mere “evidentiary hearing”: The landlord’s compliance with basic state procedure, and the tenant’s right to a jury trial, are fundamental to protect tenants in this area of law. This agreement, however, allows families to be evicted on the basis of a single hearing in front of a single judge. Nor will the tenants be able to assert any affirmative defenses – such as retaliation, discrimination, non-compliance with rent control, etc. – that have been enshrined in law for decades. 

• Requiring tenants to pay an unsubstantiated amount of attorney’s fees upon default: Such a provision is likewise unheard of in an unlawful detainer settlement. Further, that there is no such reciprocal provision should plaintiff fail to honor its commitments demonstrates an extreme bias and lack of equity. 

You and your office are asking the Hillside Villa tenants to agree to eliminate the most basic and fundamental tenant protections that you claim you support. As public interest attorneys, with many of us representing tenants in court on a daily basis, it is particularly worrisome that the city would endorse such a contract that not only serves to disadvantage the tenants of Hillside Villa, but also sets a devastating standard for other tenants going forward. Many of us have fought for years to secure a more level playing field in unlawful detainer settlements, rejecting facially inequitable terms such as those contained in this stipulation. We are concerned that your support for this agreement will help undo the progress we have made, weakening the bargaining position of tenants in this city for decades to come. 

It is imperative that a more just stipulation be drafted. There are plenty of skilled and experienced tenant advocates in this city that you could have asked for assistance to ensure that such a high-profile settlement agreement conforms to at least the minimum standards in landlord-tenant law that many of us have been able to secure for our clients. No tenant should ever have to sign a deal like this, and it is disappointing, to say the least, that your office is explicitly and aggressively encouraging the Hillside Villa Tenants to do so. 

Signed,

Lydia Nicholson

Eric Post

Alanna Holt

Jackie Park

Lynn Ta

Peter Horton

Shakeer Rahman

Alexandra Hong

Jacob Woocher

Alfredo Nava

Stephano Medina

Gina Hong

Arturo Gomez

Alex Scott

Ricci Sergienko

Patrick Dunlevy

Amy Tannenbaum

Jincy Varughese

Haley Sanders

Roberta Ponce

Magda Madrigal

Mahrad Enayati

Raymond Fang