Housing

HUD guidance eviscerates enforcement of fair housing laws 

OAKLAND — Co-leading a coalition of 16 attorneys general, California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) over guidance it issued that significantly weakens fair housing protections and makes it harder to hold landlords accountable for discrimination. The Fair Housing Act (FHA), a federal law, prohibits discrimination based on seven protected traits: (1) race, (2) color, (3) national origin, (4) religion, (5) sex, (6) familial status, (7) disability. Critically, the FHA establishes a floor — not a ceiling — for protection against housing discrimination, meaning that states can expand the scope of protections beyond what the FHA mandates. Many states have chosen to do so. For example, California also provides fair housing protections for traits such as gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, marital status, ancestry, source of income, and veteran or military status. HUD generally refers housing discrimination complaints to state and local agencies for potential action. However, HUD issued guidance in September 2025 threatening to decertify those agencies — thereby cutting off complaint referrals and funding — if they consider protections other than those required by the FHA, while simultaneously imposing new unlawful funding conditions. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the lawsuit by the attorneys general alleges that the guidance violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the U.S. Constitution and threatens to dismantle a crucial mechanism for combating housing discrimination. They ask the court to halt the Trump Administration’s implementation of the guidance.

“All levels of government — local, state, and federal — should be laser focused not only on building more housing, but also ensuring that everyone can access a home free from discrimination. Unfortunately, the Trump Administration thinks otherwise. HUD, without legal authority, is effectively undermining state laws that offer stronger protections than federal law,” said Attorney General Bonta. “My fellow attorneys general and I are united in our answer: not on our watch. HUD’s guidance is unlawful and would only roll back the progress we’ve made to keep our families safe from discrimination that limits where they can live.”

Congress enacted the FHA in 1968 to address the pervasive nationwide problem of housing discrimination and tasked HUD with enforcing this landmark civil rights law. Recognizing the scope of the challenge, Congress envisioned a strong partnership between HUD and state and local agencies. This partnership has operated for decades through the Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP). Through the FHAP, HUD funds state and local agencies whose fair housing laws are substantially equivalent to — that is, provide at least the same protections as — the FHA, and refers housing discrimination complaints to them. State and local agencies use FHAP funds to process housing discrimination complaints, train staff, and engage in community outreach and education.

In addition to requiring state and local agencies to weaken their fair housing laws, the HUD guidance at issue establishes a number of conditions that they must meet to qualify for FHAP funding, including:

• Disparate impact condition. HUD’s guidance prohibits state and local agencies from pursuing claims premised on disparate impact liability, even where state law expressly recognizes disparate impact as a cognizable theory of liability. Disparate impact liability prohibits discrimination based on the effects of a housing policy, even if the intent of the policy was not to discriminate.
• Anti-abortion condition. HUD’s guidance imposes an abortion-related funding condition on state and local agencies. The guidance, however, fails to explain what it means to “facilitate” or “promote” abortion, how FHAP agencies might do so, or why this condition unrelated to the administration of fair housing law is being imposed upon FHAP funding recipients.
• Immigration condition. HUD’s guidance prohibits FHAP funding from being used to “subsidize” or “promote” illegal immigration. However, the guidance does not explain what those terms mean.
• Gender ideology condition. HUD’s guidance prohibits state and local agencies from using funds to promote “gender ideology.” However, the definition of “gender ideology” is so imprecise that states and FHAP agencies would be required to guess what it means.

The attorneys general note that these conditions come after HUD gutted its own fair housing enforcement capabilities by slashing its headcount and significantly reducing the number of housing discrimination cases it charges. The agency also fired employee whistleblowers after they publicly sounded the alarm about its decimation of fair housing enforcement. 

In California, the California Civil Rights Department (CRD) collaborates with HUD under the FHAP. CRD does critical work to protect Californians from discrimination in housing. For example, in December 2025, CRD announced reforms at more than two dozen apartment complexes across California following an undercover fair housing test that identified evidence of potential discrimination against applicants who have previously been involved with the criminal justice system. HUD’s guidance prohibits CRD and other state and local agencies from pursuing these claims if they want to continue receiving FHAP funding.

Attorney General Bonta and Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul are co-leading today’s lawsuit. Joining them are the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

REDDING — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, in partnership with Shasta County District Attorney Stephanie Bridgett, announced a settlement with a Redding property management company, Property Upsurge, and its property-owning affiliates. The settlement resolves allegations that Property Upsurge, which manages approximately 1,300 rental units across Northern California, improperly issued eviction notices, imposed rent increases above what state law allows, and charged higher rents to tenants using Section 8 vouchers, among other egregious conduct in violation of California law. As part of the settlement, Property Upsurge must pay $550,000 to tenants and provide an additional $200,000 in debt relief, pay $50,000 in civil penalties, and take specific actions to ensure compliance with injunctive terms. 

“Forcing families out of their homes, charging illegal rent, and targeting vulnerable tenants is not just unjust, it's unlawful,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “Every Californian, in every corner of our state, deserves housing that is safe, stable, and reliable. Today’s settlement and my office’s tenant protection work proves that if landlords or property managers, no matter how small or large, violate tenant protections laws, my office will come knocking. I thank the Shasta County District Attorney’s Office, Legal Services of Northern California, and City of Redding’s Code Enforcement Division for their assistance with this investigation.”

“This resolution reflects our strong partnership with state and local agencies and our commitment to protecting residents of Shasta County,” said Shasta County District Attorney Stephanie A. Bridgett. “We will continue working to address unlawful business practices and help ensure tenants are treated fairly under the law.”

In 2023, the California Department of Justice (DOJ) launched an investigation into Property Upsurge, in partnership with the Shasta County District Attorney’s Office. The investigation revealed that Property Upsurge, which is a major property owner and management company in Redding’s lower-to mid-cost rental market, had violated the California Tenant Protection Act, California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, state tenant protection laws governing habitability and liquidated damages, and California’s Unfair Competition Law. Violations included issuing pretextual eviction notices, imposing rent increases above what state law allows, charging fees without engaging in the required liquidated-damages analysis, engaging in localized habitability violations, and charging higher rents to tenants using Section 8 vouchers, in violation of California's civil rights laws.

Under today’s settlement, which is subject to court approval, Property Upsurge is required to:

• Pay $550,000 to tenant victims, provide an additional $200,000 in debt relief, and pay $50,000 in civil penalties, which will be split between the state and Shasta County and used for the enforcement of consumer protection laws.
• Comply with the Tenant Protection Act’s substantial-remodel eviction process requirements.
• Design and implement new policies and procedures for tracking and reviewing rent increases to ensure that they are in line with state law, and train employees on these changes.
• Complete an annual compliance audit covering all rent increases for the next three years.
• Cease charging three-day notice fees entirely, engage an expert to conduct an analysis to support any late fees charged by the company, and limit those fees to the actual costs resulting from late payments of rent.
• Respond to all tenant complaints within a reasonable time, not to exceed three business days, and as immediately as possible for conditions affecting life, safety, health, and immediate well-being of residents.
• Report code enforcement citations and information on tenant complaints to DOJ and the District Attorney. 
• Rent units at the same rate regardless of whether tenants pay with government vouchers.

Attorney General Bonta is committed to protecting the rights of tenants across California. Last year, Attorney General Bonta and nine other attorneys general, announced a $7 million settlement with Greystar Management Services LLC to prevent the use of software that uses sensitive information to align rent prices. He also secured a $495,000 settlement with Mission Rock Residential California, Inc. resolving allegations that the company had raised rent for 140 families in excess of the Tenant Protection Act’s rent cap.

Members of the public are encouraged to visit DOJ’s Housing Portal and HCD’s website for more resources and information aimed at supporting access to housing. If you believe your landlord has violated the law, you can file a report online at www.oag.ca.gov/report. Tenants who need legal help are encouraged to visit www.lawhelpca.org to find legal aid resources in their communities.

Today’s victory comes on the heels of last week’s decision by the Supreme Court of California denying the City’s petition for review

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Governor Gavin Newsom today announced that the State secured a decision from the San Diego Superior Court requiring the City of Huntington Beach to, among other things, adopt a housing element within 120 days and restricting the City’s land use authority, effective immediately, until it does so. The City was required to submit a compliant housing element on October 15, 2021, more than four years ago. Today’s decision effectively puts an end to the City’s policy of blocking affordable housing for its residents.

On March 9, 2023, Attorney General Bonta, Governor Gavin Newsom, and California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Director Gustavo Velasquez filed suit against the City for failing to timely adopt a compliant housing element. The State’s lawsuit sought a court order setting a 120-day deadline for the City to come into compliance and limiting the City’s permitting, zoning, and subdivision approvals until the City adopted a substantially compliant housing element — as required under state law. On May 15, 2024, the San Diego Superior Court found that the City violated California’s Housing Element Law, but its final order omitted any references to the remedies requested by the State. The State petitioned the California Fourth District Court of Appeal for an order requiring the San Diego Superior Court to provide those mandatory remedies, and the Court of Appeal granted the State’s petition. Subsequently, the City filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court of California, seeking reversal of the appellate decision. Last week, the Supreme Court of California denied the City’s petition, which returned the case to the San Diego Superior Court. Today’s order provides the relief originally requested by the State in 2023.

“After extensive proceedings in the courts, Governor Newsom, HCD Director Velasquez, and I have secured the relief that we sought all along. The City of Huntington Beach has now been ordered to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “Huntington Beach is not above the law. Its leaders must comply with all our laws, including our state’s housing laws. We remain fully committed to ensuring that Huntington Beach does its part to address our state’s housing crisis. It has been squandering public money for far too long trying to shirk that responsibility.”

“Huntington Beach needs to end this pathetic NIMBY behavior," said Governor Gavin Newsom. "They are failing their own citizens by wasting time and money that could be used to create much-needed housing. No more excuses, you lost once again — it’s time to get building.”

“This decision once again reaffirms that no one is above the law, and Huntington Beach can no longer refuse to do its part to address California’s crisis of housing affordability and homelessness,” said HCD Director Gustavo Velasquez. “Charter cities are not exempt from state housing law, and the few bad actors who believe so need to stop looking for a way to avoid their responsibilities.” 

In addition to requiring the City to adopt a housing element within 120 days, the San Diego Superior Court ordered the following:

• The June 20, 2024 order finding that the City is out of compliance with the Housing Element Law remains effective for purposes of the penalty provisions of Gov. Code section 65585(l), which provides for escalating penalties after one year of non-compliance with a court order, culminating potentially in the appointment of a receiver.
• The City must fast track the review and approval of Builder's Remedy projects.
• The City must fast track the review and approval of projects that would have been entitled to by-right treatment if the City had adopted its draft housing element in 2023.
• The City cannot use existing land use policies to deny projects that would have been entitled to by-right treatment in its draft housing element.
• The City's permitting, rezoning, and subdivision authority is otherwise suspended for sites identified in its draft housing element.  

In response to the State’s lawsuit, the City of Huntington Beach filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the certain California housing laws. The City’s lawsuit was dismissed by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit unanimously affirmed the district court’s dismissal, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit then denied the City’s petition for rehearing en banc. The City has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the aforementioned rulings, and that request remains ongoing.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Governor Gavin Newsom today applauded the Supreme Court of California’s decision to reject the City of Huntington Beach’s petition for review in Kennedy Commission v. Superior Court. The petition asked the state’s highest court to review an appellate ruling that determined the City’s status as a charter city does not insulate it from certain judicial remedies for its longstanding violation of California’s Housing Element Law.

On March 9, 2023, Attorney General Bonta, Governor Newsom, and California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Director Gustavo Velasquez filed suit against the City for failing to timely adopt a compliant housing element. The State’s lawsuit sought a court order setting a 120-day deadline for the City to come into compliance and limiting the City’s permitting, zoning, and subdivision approvals until the City adopted a substantially compliant housing element — as required under state law. On May 15, 2024, the San Diego Superior Court found that the City violated California’s Housing Element Law, but its final order omitted any references to the remedies requested by the State. In a unanimous decision, the California Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the lower court “erred when it omitted the 120-day compliance deadline and one or more mandatory provisional remedies” in its final order. Today’s denial means that the appellate ruling, which directed the San Diego Superior Court to enter a new order providing the relief requested by the State and to "expeditiously" adjudicate all remaining issues in the case, still stands. 

“Huntington Beach has run out of excuses in our state’s courts. It was required to submit a compliant housing element on October 15, 2021, more than four years ago. Rather than follow the law, the City has been squandering public money to avoid building its fair share of housing,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “We promised that we would hold Huntington Beach accountable, and we have successfully done so at every turn to date. Our case now returns to the trial court, where we will continue to ensure that the City answers for its unlawful actions.”

“Huntington Beach needs to end this pathetic NIMBY behavior,” said Governor Gavin Newsom. “They are failing their own citizens by wasting time and money that could be used to create much-needed housing. No more excuses, you lost once again — it’s time to get building.”

"This decision reaffirms that no one is above the law, and Huntington Beach can no longer refuse to do its part to address California’s crisis of housing affordability and homelessness,” said HCD Director Gustavo Velasquez. “Charter cities are not exempt from state housing law, and the few bad actors who believe so need to stop looking for a way to avoid their responsibilities.”

In response to the State’s lawsuit, the City of Huntington Beach filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the certain California housing laws. The City’s lawsuit was dismissed by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit unanimously affirmed the district court’s dismissal, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit then denied the City’s petition for rehearing en banc. The City has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the aforementioned rulings, and that request remains ongoing.

Greystar, the largest landlord in the United States, manages nearly 950,000 rental units nationwide. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, as part of a coalition of nine attorneys general, announced a $7 million settlement with Greystar Management Services LLC (Greystar), one of the property management companies named as a defendant in Attorney General Bonta's ongoing antitrust lawsuit against software company RealPage. As part of today's settlement, Greystar agrees to stop using software offered by any company, including RealPage, that uses competitively sensitive information to align rent prices. Greystar also agrees to cooperate in the ongoing prosecution of RealPage and other defendant landlords. Attorney General Bonta alleges that Greystar used RealPage’s revenue management system to align rental prices with competing landlords by illegally sharing and gathering confidential pricing information. 

"Whether it's through smoke-filled backroom deals or through an algorithm on your computer screen, colluding to drive up prices is illegal,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Families across the country are staring down an affordability crisis. Companies that intentionally fuel this unaffordability by raising prices to line their own pockets can be sure I will use the full force of my office to hold them accountable. California is stronger when we protect tenants and a competitive economy.” 

RealPage uses algorithmic models to recommend price increases to subscribers. As alleged the January 2025 complaint, Greystar and other landlords, including five co-defendants, shared competitively sensitive data to generate pricing recommendations using RealPage’s algorithms. Greystar and other landlords discussed competitively sensitive topics — including pricing strategies, rents, and selected parameters for RealPage’s software — directly with each other. Landlords also understood that their nonpublic data would be used to recommend prices not just for their own units, but also for competitors who use the programs, and agree to provide this information because they understood they would benefit from the information of their rivals. In other words, RealPage knew what competing landlords were charging and could increase profits for landlords by using that information to recommend landlords set or raise their prices uniformly, thereby eliminating competition, and leaving renters no choice but to pay artificially high prices.

In California, Greystar manages approximately 333 multifamily rental properties that use RealPage’s pricing software. Over the last four decades, housing needs have significantly outpaced housing production in California. Housing costs have skyrocketed, making it harder for Californians to keep a roof over their heads. California's 17 million renters spend a significant portion of their paychecks on rent, with an estimated 700,000 Californians at risk of eviction.    

Today’s settlement, subject to court approval, requires Greystar to pay $7 million in penalties and fees to the states. Greystar must also:  

•  Refrain from using any anticompetitive algorithm that generates pricing recommendations using its rivals’ competitively sensitive data or that incorporates certain anticompetitive features;
• Refrain from sharing competitively sensitive information with competitors;
• Accept a court-appointed monitor if it uses a third-party pricing algorithm that is not certified pursuant to the terms of the consent decree;
• Refrain from attending or participating in RealPage-hosted meetings of competing landlords; and
• Cooperate with the states’ monopolization claims against RealPage.

Joining Attorney General Bonta in reaching this settlement were the attorneys general of North Carolina, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oregon, and Tennessee.

To learn more about the ongoing lawsuit against RealPage and property management companies Camden, Pinnacle, LivCor, and Willow Bridge please see here.

A copy of the proposed judgment can be found here. 

ANTITRUST AND YOU:

Antitrust enforcement is an essential component of a healthy economy. Competitive marketplaces established through antitrust vigilance help consumers by ensuring fair prices for goods and services, an array of products to choose from, quality goods and services, and the steady introduction of innovative new products. As part of the Attorney General’s commitment to enforce antitrust laws, the California Department of Justice has launched an Antitrust Complaint Form. Please click here to report anticompetitive conduct that potentially violates the antitrust laws.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued a legal alert to assist California local officials in processing housing development project applications consistently, fairly, and lawfully. Housing development project applications are official requests submitted to local authorities for approval to build new housing projects. The Permit Streamlining Act was enacted in 1977 to streamline and clarify the processing of permits for all development projects. Local agencies, including charter cities, are required to determine whether a development application is complete, and convey that determination to the applicant, within 30 days of receipt. If deemed incomplete, applicants can revise and resubmit their applications within 90 days thereafter, in a process designed to iteratively refine a development application until it is complete. This process is referred to as the "90-Day Rule."

Senate Bill 330 (Skinner, 2019), the “Housing Crisis Act,” amended the Permit Streamlining Act to allow housing development project applicants to submit a preliminary application, which locks in applicable development standards at the time the preliminary application was submitted. The Housing Crisis Act requires the applicant to then file a full application within 180 days. Some jurisdictions have misinterpreted this law to mean that such applicants only get one or two 90-day review periods before losing their vesting rights. In today’s legal alert, Attorney General Bonta underscores that, for purposes of determining whether a housing development project application is complete, an applicant is entitled to as many 90-day review and resubmission periods as necessary and, throughout the process, retains the rights that vest upon the submission of a preliminary application under the Housing Crisis Act, so long as the applicant submits its first attempt at a full application within 180 days of its preliminary application.

“In recent years, the California Legislature has passed numerous bills to address our housing shortage crisis, and my office is committed to being part of the solution,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The legal alert we are issuing today is important because, unfortunately, some local governments are misinterpreting laws that were intended to add certainty and reduce conflict in the approval process for housing projects. We can't let that confusion continue because it's California's families who pay the high housing costs of unaffordable housing or a long commute when local governments use unfair and unpredictable processes to block needed housing. Our focus must be on results, not delay for the sake of delay."

Key points from the legal alert include:

• The statutory provisions codifying the Permit Streamlining Act, and as amended by Senate Bill 330, expressly contemplate iterative review of development applications, or as many back-and-forth review and revisions as necessary, between an agency and an applicant, for purposes of completeness determinations.
• The separate requirement, that a full development application must be submitted within 180 days of a preliminary application, does not justify limiting this iterative process. This point is particularly crucial with respect to “Builder’s Remedy” applications, and in determining whether a local agency’s decision, or course of conduct, constitutes disapproval of a housing development project application under the Housing Accountability Act.
• The Attorney General’s interpretation of the Permit Streamlining Act’s 90-Day Rule is consistent with at least two recent lower court rulings: Janet Jha v. City of Los Angeles, et al. and Yes in My Back Yard, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al. 

Questions on the legal alert can be submitted via email to housing@doj.ca.gov. 

A copy of the legal alert can be found here.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued the following statement in response to Governor Gavin Newsom signing into law Senate Bill 786 (Arreguín) and Senate Bill 808 (Caballero), two bills sponsored by Attorney General Bonta that aim to accelerate housing construction in California. SB 786 will set clear rules to avoid disputes that delay home building and ensure swift and effective relief in housing element litigation. SB 808 creates a new judicial process to resolve project entitlement and permitting disputes quickly and efficiently. SB 786 and SB 808 both take effect on January 1, 2026.

“Millions of Californians are desperate for housing options that fit their budget and are near loved ones, social networks, and jobs. That means we need to build more homes, and quickly. In recent years, our Legislature has passed several bills to address this crisis, but the reality is that we still have much progress to make,” said Attorney General Bonta. “I sponsored SB 786 and SB 808 because these bills will accelerate our progress toward a more affordable California. I’m grateful to Senators Anna Caballero and Jesse Arreguín for authoring these important pieces of legislation, and to Governor Newsom for signing them into law.”

“SB 786 addresses housing affordability impacting millions of Californians by ensuring that the housing being planned for actually gets built. This bill will make it easier to create desperately needed housing across the state by minimizing costly delays and eliminating court loopholes,” said Senator Jesse Arreguín. “I am thankful for Attorney General Rob Bonta’s sponsorship of this bill and his leadership to ensure housing for all.”

“A core value that I have always held is the belief that safe, decent, affordable housing is a human right. Behind every stalled housing project are families waiting for a place to call home. With Governor Newsom’s signature on my bill, SB 808, we now have a fairer, faster process to resolve disputes and get homes built without unnecessary delay,” said Senator Anna Caballero. "I’m deeply grateful to have Attorney General Rob Bonta as a partner to help more families, young people, and seniors find stability in the communities they love.”

SB 786

SB 786 will resolve ambiguities in housing element law with sensible, bright line rules.

• First, when there are conflicting development standards in the housing element and another general plan element, the most recently adopted element will control. This will make it easier for all parties to understand the rules up front. 
• Second, when local governments commit to removing constraints on housing development by a specific deadline in their certified housing element, this bill will clarify the consequence for failing to meet that deadline by directing the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to review the housing element for potential decertification. This will encourage local governments to keep their commitments to remove harmful barriers to new housing. Setting clear rules facilitates implementation and avoids litigation and project delays. 
• The bill will also amend judicial procedures for housing element cases to ensure that court orders deliver fair, swift, and effective relief, including expediting temporary relief when the evidence shows early in a case that a housing element is likely to be legally inadequate and specifying that a court order to adopt a housing element is not stayed pending appeal.

SB 808

When housing project applications are improperly denied under current law, the Attorney General, or the project applicant, can bring an enforcement action to compel the local government to comply with state law. SB 808 will expedite these actions to enforce state housing laws, including the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), ministerial approval laws, and accessory-dwelling unit (ADU) laws. The expedited writ procedure in SB 808 preserves existing substantive law and will not alter the authority of local governments, but will bring swifter resolution to these disputes and allow more housing projects to move forward more quickly.

California DOJ prepared to take action against those who exploit California tenants  

LOS ANGELES — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today held a press conference in Los Angeles to ask California tenants who have been harmed by their landlords to come forward with their experiences. This past June, Attorney General Bonta sued Mike Nijjar, one of California’s biggest landlords, and his family’s group of property management and real estate holding companies, for violating California laws that protect tenants. The California Department of Justice (California DOJ) would like to hear the stories of Californians who were harmed by Mr. Nijjar’s companies — or by any other landlord. While California DOJ does not represent individuals, your story may help us investigate or take other legal action to protect Californians. People who wish to share their stories can do so by submitting a report to oag.ca.gov/report. There is an option to make your report in Spanish to oag.ca.gov/reportar. 

“California tenants have the right to live in a safe house or apartment — no matter the language they speak or their immigration status or income level. As the People’s Attorney, it is my job to hold landlords accountable for violating tenant protection laws that keep tenants safe and housed,” said Attorney General Bonta. “This summer, my office filed a lawsuit alleging landlord Mike Nijjar and his companies exploited vulnerable families by subjecting tenants to unsafe housing conditions, including cockroach and rodent infestations, leaking roofs, and overflowing sewage, all while deceiving tenants about their rights to sue their landlord and demand repairs. If you or your family have experienced conditions like these, I want to know. Please reach out to my office by filing a report at oag.ca.gov/report. While my office cannot represent individual tenants, your stories help us in our prosecution of landlords who exploit California tenants.”

Mr. Nijjar and his companies own and manage over 22,000 rental housing units statewide, primarily in lower-income, Spanish-speaking neighborhoods. The management companies, formerly called PAMA Management and IE Rental Homes, go by the following names: 

• Legacy Management (in Los Angeles County and the Inland Empire)
• Regency Management (in metropolitan Los Angeles and the San Gabriel Valley)
• Bridge Management (in Antelope Valley and San Bernardino County)
• Hightower Management (in and near the City of San Bernardino)
• Pro Management (in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties)
• Equity Management (in and around Bakersfield, Stockton, Sacramento, and Fresno)
• Mobile Management (statewide) 

Attorney General Bonta’s lawsuit against Mr. Nijjar and his companies alleges that these companies subject tenants to unhealthy and unsafe conditions, in violation of tenant protection law. The lawsuit alleges that the Nijjar companies:

• Do not provide Spanish translations of their leases and other important documents to tenants, as required by state law, even when they conduct the leasing process in Spanish.
• Discriminate against applications with Section 8 vouchers by refusing to rent to them.
• Include deceptive lease terms in their leases.
• Unlawfully increased rent for many tenants.  

The main goal of the lawsuit against Mr. Nijjar and his companies is to ensure they provide safe living conditions for all their tenants and comply with the law. California DOJ recognizes it is important to preserve all existing housing options for lower-income Californians and is not seeking to remove tenants from their homes or force the sale of buildings to developers. The lawsuit seeks appropriate remedies under the law, including restitution to affected tenants and injunctive terms requiring the defendants to follow the law and improve conditions at their properties. 

To file a complaint and share your story with California DOJ, please visit oag.ca.gov/report.   

To learn more about your rights as a tenant, please visit here.   

Californians who are facing eviction or believe their landlord has violated their tenant rights should seek legal help immediately. If you cannot afford a lawyer, you may qualify for free or low-cost legal aid. To find a legal aid office near where you live, visit lawhelpca.org and click on the “Find Legal Help” tab. If you do not qualify for legal aid and need help finding a lawyer, visit the California State Bar webpage to find a local certified lawyer referral service, or visit the California Courts’ webpage for tenants facing evictions.

For graphics to use in your reporting, please see here for a map of some Nijjar properties. Please see here and here for a call to action in Spanish and English, respectively. 

Puede encontrar una copia de este comunicado de prensa en español aquí.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Governor Gavin Newsom today secured a unanimous decision from the California Fourth District Court of Appeal holding that the lower court, the San Diego Superior Court, “erred when it omitted the 120-day compliance deadline and one or more mandatory provisional remedies” in its order holding that the City of Huntington Beach violated California's Housing Element Law. On March 9, 2023, Attorney General Bonta, Governor Newsom, and California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Director Gustavo Velasquez filed suit against the City for failing to timely adopt a compliant housing element. The State’s lawsuit sought a court order setting a 120-day deadline for the City to come into compliance and limiting the City’s permitting, zoning, and subdivision approvals until the City adopted a substantially compliant housing element — as required under state law. On May 15, 2024, the San Diego Superior Court found that the City violated California’s Housing Element Law, but its final order removed any references to the remedies requested by the State. Confirming that charter cities like Huntington Beach cannot use their status as a charter city to delay or avoid adopting a compliant housing element, the appellate decision directs the San Diego Superior Court to enter a new order providing the relief requested by the State and to "expediently" adjudicate all remaining issues in the case.  

“The deadline for Huntington Beach to submit a compliant housing element was October 15, 2021, nearly four years ago. At a time when California is experiencing a housing crisis of epic proportions, the City’s continued reluctance to follow the law is inexcusable, and we have been in court seeking accountability,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “Today’s win is an important development. Huntington Beach is running out of excuses, and the consequences for failing to plan for its fair share of housing are becoming clearer and more serious. The City has already lost its federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of certain California housing laws, and now it has lost its claim that it is exempt from California's housing laws.” 

“Huntington Beach officials have wasted vast sums of taxpayer dollars to defend clearly unlawful NIMBY policies,” said Governor Gavin Newsom. “They are failing their own citizens — by wasting time and money that could be used to create much-needed housing. No more excuses — every city must follow state law and do its part to build more housing.”

"This is an important victory in our challenge to Huntington Beach's refusal to do its fair share in addressing the statewide housing crisis,” said HCD Director Velasquez. “Every city, including charter cities, has a legal and moral responsibility to promote housing opportunities for people at all income levels, and HCD will continue to hold Huntington Beach and other recalcitrant jurisdictions accountable."

Specifically, the three-judge panel from the California Fourth District Court of Appeal wrote the following in its order: “We agree with the [State] that the trial court erred when it omitted the 120-day compliance deadline and one or more mandatory provisional remedies. We reach this determination because we are persuaded that Article 14 of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code—the umbrella article containing sections 65754 and 65755—applies in legal enforcement actions challenging the housing elements of charter cities like the City.” 

A copy of the court’s order can be found here.

Artesia to update housing plan by January 2026 for development of 1,069 additional housing units

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta, California Governor Gavin Newsom, and California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Director Gustavo Velasquez today announced a settlement that will bring the City of Artesia into compliance with the state’s Housing Element Law. The agreement, which is in the form of a proposed stipulated judgment and must be approved by the court, lays out deadlines for the City to revise the housing element of its general plan for the period from 2021 to 2029, holds the City accountable for its failure to do so before the statutory deadline, and clarifies the consequences of continued non-compliance with the Housing Element Law.    

Under the state’s Housing Element Law, every city and county in California must periodically update its housing plan to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), or share of the regional and statewide housing needs. In 2023, HCD found Artesia — located in Los Angeles County and home to more than 15,000 people — to be out of compliance with the Housing Element Law. HCD issued a letter of inquiry, inviting Artesia to explain its non-compliance in May 2023. The City responded with a proposed timeline for compliance, but then failed to meet its own deadline. HCD issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) in October 2024. Today’s agreement holds Artesia to a binding timeline for compliance, with clear legal and financial consequences for any further delays. 

“I commend the City of Artesia for doing the right thing. Instead of continuing to kick the can down the road, the City has finally committed to do its part to plan for the region’s housing needs,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “Cities and counties that still have not adopted compliant housing elements should pay close attention. The deadline for compliance passed years ago, and so, this settlement includes new enforcement tools. Planning for housing is not an abstract exercise. Californians need quality homes that they can afford. Governor Newsom, HCD Director Velasquez, and I will continue fighting to ensure that every local government — no matter how small or big — follows state law and helps address our state’s housing crisis.”

“Artesia has wasted time and money stalling on their obligations when they could have instead been providing necessary housing for the families in their community,” said Governor Gavin Newsom. “Every jurisdiction must do their part to create more housing and make their communities more affordable.”

"This outcome further reinforces California's housing laws that ensure every locality is doing its part to build homes and address this crisis," said HCD Director Gustavo Velasquez. "HCD stands ready to help Artesia and all local jurisdictions comply with state housing law, and we will continue to demand accountability from jurisdictions falling short of that critical responsibility."

Among other things, a compliant housing element must include an assessment of housing needs, an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to meeting those needs, and a program to implement the policies, goals, and objectives of the housing element. Once the housing element is adopted, it is implemented through zoning ordinances and other actions that put its objectives into effect and facilitate the construction of new homes for Californians at all income levels.   

The housing element is a crucial tool for building housing for moderate-, low-, and very low-income Californians and redressing historical redlining and disinvestment. State income limits for what constitutes moderate-, low-, and very low-income Californians vary by county and can be found here. In Los Angeles County, the median income for a one-person household is $74,600 A one-person household that earns less than $84,850 is defined as low-income, and a one-person household that earns less than $53,000 is defined as very-low income.  

Under the settlement:

• Artesia will take several required actions to adopt a compliant housing element no later than January 2026. The housing element will plan for 1,069 new homes, including 608 that will be affordable for very low-, low-, and moderate-income Californians.
• Artesia will face civil penalties assessed at the statutory minimum of $10,000 per month from January 1, 2025 to the compliance deadline of January 2026. These penalties will be suspended but, if Artesia fails to meet any further deadlines, the penalties will immediately become due and will accrue until the City comes into compliance.
• Artesia must acknowledge that the “Builder’s Remedy”— a provision in the Housing Accountability Act that requires local permitting authorities to process certain housing project development applications, regardless of zoning or general plan consistency — is in effect until the City has an updated housing element deemed to be in substantial compliance, and must process those development permit applications accordingly.
• Until the stipulated judgment is satisfied, the City will be subject to additional penalties if it wrongfully denies certain housing development projects.

A copy of the petition and proposed judgment, which details the settlement terms and remains subject to court approval, can be found here and here, respectively.