This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Santa Monica Beach (P) filed a complaint for inverse condemnation and a later a petition for a writ of mandate. The city of Santa Monica had adopted a rent control amendment and established a rent control board. Owners were required to register each rental unit and pay an annual registration fee to the Board. The Board established maximum rents allowable, annual adjustments, individual adjustments, and regulated evictions. P alleged that rent control was an agent for gentrification in disguise. The facts of the case bore this general conclusion out (see page 660-661 Rabin 4th). P applied under the rules for a rent increase and was denied. A second request was made and a rent increase was allowed but P was dissatisfied and filed its complaint. P claimed that the law did not meet the substantial advancement test by the U.S. Supreme Court and that the Board acted in excess of its jurisdiction under the law. The Board (D) demurred to the claim of inverse condemnation as there was a rational basis for the law. The trial court agreed. P applied for a writ of mandate with the Court of appeal. The Court of Appeal set aside the trial court's demurrer; heightened scrutiny applied to Rent Control Law under Nollan.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.