November 1 , 2007

Contact:      
Laura Burns - (310) 392-5079
Sheila Bernard (LPTA President) - (310) 871-6368
P.O. Box 1312, Venice, CA  90293 / (310) 452-4956
Email: info@lincolnplace.net

For legal inquiries: John Murdock - (310) 450-1859

CAL SUPREME COURT HANDS AIMCO DEFEAT IN LINCOLN PLACE SLAPP CASE

Tenants had right to ask Court if evictions were legal

LOS ANGELES, CA -- In a case closely watched by housing advocates across California, the Supreme Court of California has summarily rejected Apartment Investment and Management’s (AIMCO) petition for review and request for depublication in the case Marlin v AIMCO, Nr. S156376. As a result, the 2nd District Court of Appeal’s published decision remains intact, providing an important precedent for tenants statewide.

Lincoln Place tenants Frieda and Leslie Marlin brought a declarative relief action seeking a determination from the Court that their landlord AIMCO could not lawfully evict them from their apartments. The Marlins contended AIMCO’s attempt to evict them violated the terms of conditions imposed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in connection with a redevelopment project the city approved in November, 2002. According to AIMCO filings with the SEC, Lincoln Place had been acquired by AIMCO Lincoln Place Apts, LP in June 2001 as part of a joint venture. To secure project approval, AIMCO voluntarily promised that no tenant could be evicted from the property against their will and asked the City to make the condition binding on all successors-in-interest. AIMCO now owns 100% of Lincoln Place through another subsidiary, AIMCO Venezia, LLC.

Using an increasingly common landlord tactic, AIMCO filed a "motion to strike" to dismiss the case, alleging that the Marlins request to the court was a "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation," or "SLAPP suit". In other words, they claimed the Marlins had violated AIMCO's first amendment right to petition the court for eviction of the tenants. They claimed the Marlin’s lawsuit was designed to have a "chilling effect" on AIMCO’s exercise of its constitutional rights. The lower court dismissed the Marlins’ suit, based on its interpretation of the SLAPP statute to mean that AIMCO could not be sued for initiating evictions.

The Court of Appeals disagreed with this interpretation and ruled that the Marlins' request was not a "SLAPP suit" at all, it was an action to have the court declare whether AIMCO could legally evict the tenants in the first place.  The Court ruled that the Marlins and AIMCO had a genuine legal controversy and the Marlins were entitled to an answer from the court.

This ruling is important to tenants statewide, effectively removing such anti-SLAPP motions from a landlords’ legal arsenal. As the Court noted, "[T]his appeal raises important issues concerning the interpretation and application of the SLAPP statute. The California Attorney General considers these issues important enough to file an amicus brief on behalf of the Marlins. In addition, these issues are likely to recur in other proceedings involving disputes between landlords and tenants or public entities such as rent control boards."

In the amicus brief, the Attorney General agreed with John Murdock, the Marlin’s attorney, that AIMCO’s invocation of the Anti-SLAPP motion turned the SLAPP statute on its head, doing the opposite of what it was designed to do and that it was necessary that the statute be properly applied in landlord-tenant cases. Both Attorneys General Bill Lockyer and Jerry Brown participated in the case on behalf of the Marlins.

With the Supreme Court’s rejection of the case, the Marlins' case will go back to the trial court. But in the meantime, the Marlins have actually already received the answer to their legal question. In a sweeping opinion issued by the Court of Appeals in September, the Court held AIMCO’s evictions were unlawful. The ruling was issued in the related case, Lincoln Place Tenants Assn v City of Los Angeles, Case B193235. (AIMCO is now seeking review of that case before the California Supreme Court).

In that case, the appeals court ruled that AIMCO could not attempt "to defeat" the conditions it imposed upon itself in order to obtain approval of the redevelopment project by "ignoring" the conditions or "attempting to render them meaningless by moving ahead with the project in spite of them." The Court stated that AIMCO’s argument that it is not bound by the terms of the development project is "unsupported by any authority."

The Court instructed the lower court to issue an injunction barring AIMCO from evicting any remaining tenants unless the conditions are complied with or amended in compliance with applicable law. The Marlins are covered by this injunction.

Thus the Marlins have, though through a different case, both the answer to their question and the injunction they sought in the Marlin v AIMCO. In addition, they are delighted with the effect their case will have. The Supreme Court’s rejection of AIMCO’s request for review and "depublication" of the Marlin’s case achieves a victory for tenants statewide, insuring them the right to petition the court if they believe their landlord is breaking the law.

"Today’s action by the Supreme Court restores the anti-SLAPP statute to its original purpose: to prevent powerful organizations from silencing the little guy," said Leslie Marlin.

AIMCO, the largest landlord in the country, is an S&P 500 company traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol AIV.

###

© Lincoln Place Tenants Association
Email: info@lincolnplace.net