Unlawful detainer: nuisance: unlawful weapons and ammunition.

(1) Existing law defines a nuisance and includes within this definition anything which is injurious to health, including the illegal sale of controlled substances. Existing law provides that a tenant who permits a nuisance to be maintained on leased property is guilty of unlawful detainer and may be evicted. Until January 1, 2014, the law authorized a city prosecutor or city attorney to file, in the name of the people, an action for unlawful detainer to abate the nuisance caused by illegal conduct involving unlawful weapons or ammunition on real property, as specified. This bill would, until January 1, 2019, reenact provisions authorizing a city prosecutor or city attorney in specified counties to file an action for unlawful detainer to abate a nuisance caused by illegal conduct involving unlawful weapons or ammunition described above. The bill would require the action to be based on an arrest or warrant, as specified. The bill would require, prior to filing an action, specified notice to be provided to the owner of the property, requiring the removal of the person who is violating specified law, and would require notices to be served on both tenant and owner. The bill would authorize proof of giving the notice to be made by a declaration signed under penalty of perjury by an employee of the public entity giving the notice. The bill would require the owner to provide, within 30 calendar days of the mailing of the notice, all relevant information pertaining to the unlawful detainer case, or provide a written explanation regarding safety-related reasons for noncompliance, and an assignment of the right to bring an unlawful detainer action against the tenant. The bill would require the assignment to be on a form provided by the city prosecutor or city attorney and authorize it to contain a provision for costs of investigation, discovery, and reasonable attorney's fees, not to exceed $600. The bill would permit joinder of the owner if the owner fails to respond, as specified, would give the case priority over similar proceedings, and would authorize an award of specified costs and fees. The bill would require a court to dismiss, without prejudice, an unlawful detainer action if the grounds for an eviction have not been established and allow the court the discretion to dismiss the unlawful detainer action if the tenant establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the immediate eviction would pose an extreme hardship to the tenant and that the hardship outweighs the health, safety, or welfare of the neighbors or surrounding community, as specified. Among other things, the bill would permit a court to order a partial eviction, as specified, and would define "unlawful weapons or ammunition purpose" for these purposes. The bill would impose reporting requirements regarding the implementation of these programs upon the city attorney and city prosecutor of the participating jurisdictions and would require the California Research Bureau to create a template for these local officials to submit information to the bureau, and the bureau in turn, would submit a report to the Senate and Assembly Committees on Judiciary, as specified, summarizing the information collected and evaluating the merits of the programs established. The bill would allow a defendant to raise as an affirmative defense, the failure of these jurisdictions to make a good faith effort to comply with the reporting requirements in order to bring unlawful detainer actions pursuant to these provisions. The bill would apply to the Counties of Alameda, Los Angeles, and Sacramento. By imposing new reporting requirements on local officials, and by expanding the scope of the crime of perjury, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. (2) This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Counties of Alameda, Los Angeles, and Sacramento. (3) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. (4) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.