“LA Just Made It Impossible to Evict”: What Landlord Attorney’s Rant Gets Right for Renters

By: Stephanie S. Germani

On the December 21 episode of attorney Dennis Block’s “Zoom Landlord‑Tenant Talk Radio” titled “LA Just Made It Impossible to Evict Non‑Paying Tenants,” and promoted through his Evict123 website, listeners were told that Los Angeles has made it “impossible” to evict. The opening monologue complained about registration certificates, required postings, security‑deposit interest, fair-market rent thresholds, and a new requirement to upload notices to the City. From a tenant’s attorney’s perspective, that list is not proof that evictions are impossible. It is a rough checklist of rights and defenses that can keep a family housed long enough to stabilize or negotiate a safe exit.

Just cause and baseline renter protections

Since Los Angeles adopted a permanent renter‑protection framework and a citywide Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance, most tenants cannot be removed without a legally recognized “at‑fault” or “no‑fault” ground. No‑fault grounds, like owner move‑in, often require relocation assistance; nonpayment requires meeting a local minimum‑arrears threshold tied to fair‑market rent. These rules do not guarantee that tenants win. They do mean a landlord must generally show more than “your lease is over” to obtain a judgment for possession.

Filing and notice defects as affirmative defenses

Block is right that Los Angeles now requires landlords to file copies of termination notices with the Housing Department within a few business days of service. LAHD even publishes an eviction‑notice filing cover sheet and instructions for how to submit notices through its portal or by mail. For tenants, that filing step is an affirmative defense: if the landlord never filed the three‑day or 60‑day notice, or filed it late, the tenant can argue that the eviction is defective under local law.

The same is true for the City’s renter‑protection notice and other disclosures. LAHD’s standard “Renter Protections” form explains key rights like just cause, nonpayment thresholds, and protections against lockouts and must be provided to tenants in covered properties. When landlords skip these notices, they create issues of compliance that can support defenses, continuances, or complaints to LAHD. From the tenant’s side, enforcing these “technicalities” is one of the only ways to offset the structural imbalance between a property owner with a long‑term asset and a renter whose entire housing security can hinge on a single missed paycheck.

Anti‑harassment tools and right to counsel

Block’s monologue mentions the Tenant Anti‑Harassment Ordinance only to dismiss it as another burden on landlords. In fact, that ordinance is one of the strongest tools available to tenants who are facing lockouts, service cuts, or campaigns of baseless notices intended to drive them out. It prohibits tactics like refusing lawful rent, cutting utilities, or abusing access, and gives tenants a way to push back when the landlord’s goal is intimidation rather than a lawful eviction.

Los Angeles has also invested in right‑to‑counsel infrastructure. The City’s Eviction Defense Program and countywide Stay Housed LA network aim to ensure that low‑income tenants can get free representation or robust advice when they receive a notice. That support is crucial because a right on paper, such as the right to a filed notice or relocation assistance, is meaningless if the tenant never learns about it or cannot raise it in court. In that sense, the programs modestly balance the scales. Landlords litigate with an income‑producing property behind them, while tenants are just trying not to lose the place where they sleep at night.

Using the rant as a checklist

For tenant‑side practitioners, Block’s “impossible to evict” segment can be repurposed as a simple triage script. When a client walks in with a notice:

• Confirm just‑cause coverage and whether the stated reason matches a recognized ground.
• Ask whether the landlord filed the notice with LAHD and request proof; if not, flag an affirmative defense.
• Check whether the tenant received the City’s renter‑protection notice and other required disclosures.
• Screen for harassment tactics that might support additional claims or leverage.

From the radio host’s chair, these requirements look like “insanity.” From the tenant’s side of the courtroom, they are modest guardrails in a system where one party owns an asset that grows in value over time and the other funds that growth but walks away with nothing if the case goes badly.

Evictions are still on the table. What has changed is that in exchange for the equity, appreciation, and tax advantages that come with owning property, eviction is no longer as simple as 1‑2‑3.

Stephanie S. Germani, Esq. practices landlord‑tenant law in Southern California, representing both residential landlords and tenants, and writes about housing and eviction with a particular interest in what the law looks like from both sides of the lease.