The California Apartment Association has formally opposed requests to strip publication from its recent appellate victory in Pasadena.

As previously reported, the Court of Appeal ruled that Pasadena cannot require housing providers to pay relocation assistance when tenants move out after a lawful rent increase on units exempt from local rent control. The court concluded that this rent-triggered mandate conflicts with the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act.

After failing to persuade the Court of Appeal to reconsider its decision, Pasadena and tenant advocates asked the California Supreme Court not only to grant review, but also to "depublish" the key portion of the opinion if review is denied - a move that would prevent other courts from relying on the ruling.

In its opposition filed Feb. 23, CAA explains why depublication is unwarranted. The association argues that the Court of Appeal applied well-established state preemption principles to a new factual context and that opponents are attacking "straw men" in an attempt to narrow the decision's impact.

Meanwhile, a coalition of tenant advocacy organizations has filed a friend-of-the-court letter urging the court to grant review and reverse the ruling.

The letter - signed by groups including Tenants Together, the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, often known by the acronym ACCE, the San Francisco Anti-Displacement Coalition and the Pasadena Tenants Union - argues that rent-triggered relocation assistance is an important anti-displacement tool and warns that the appellate decision could affect similar ordinances statewide.

The filing underscores what has become clear in the weeks since the decision: the Pasadena ruling has implications beyond a single city. Los Angeles is currently defending its own rent-increase-triggered relocation mandate in a pending appeal.

CAA maintains that the Court of Appeal's decision properly reinforces the limits state law places on local rent regulation, and that cities may not penalize housing providers for exercising rights the Legislature expressly protected.

The California Supreme Court has not yet indicated whether it will grant review or the depublication requests.