No case, however, addresses the question posed here, i. e., the constitutional propriety of restitutive money awards by an administrative agency. 454-455], citing as an example of 'public rights' the federal landlord/tenant law discussed in Block v. Hirsh, [supra, 256 U. BROUSSARD, J., Concurring and Dissenting. In that statute, effective January 1, 1987, the Legislature provides that as to landlords who are in "substantial compliance" with a rent control law, the "exclusive remedies" for noncompliance shall be restitution to the tenant, with recovery of filing fees due to the "local agency. " Ensuring rental-property owners a fair return. Plaintiff asserts the director's power held unconstitutional in Jersey Maid is indistinguishable from the Board's authority to determine excess rents and order reparations under section 1809, subdivision (b). The Administrative Procedure Act provides for the many agencies operating under its terms that an agency decision is effective 30 days after it is delivered unless the agency orders that the decision become effective sooner. Santa Monica voters to consider tighter rent control •. I) The "reasonable necessity/legitimate regulatory purpose" requirement. The majority conclude that the order is unconstitutional because it was immediately enforceable at the "discretion of a private party. In April 1979 the voters of the City of Santa Monica adopted by initiative a rent control ordinance to be administered by the Board. 39 Plaintiff asserts that by allowing such withholding, and by setting up the Board's decision as a defense to any unlawful detainer action based on nonpayment of rent, the Board in practical effect issued a self-enforceable judgment, thereby violating the judicial powers clause. They cannot; their own citations demonstrate that the matter is settled at the state and federal levels, and that many of our own state regulations provide for administrative penalties. They are proper if it may fairly be said that there is need of them in order to produce an efficient and effective administrative enforcement of the public interest.... [¶] Whatever the borderland of doubt and interchange, argument seems unneeded to demonstrate that the function of trying and deciding litigation is strictly [49 Cal. 2b] As noted above, the Board held hearings, heard testimony, and determined that plaintiff charged excess rents of $1, 068 to tenant Plevka, and $600.
The counterclaim raised purely "private" common law disputes "of the kind assumed to be at the 'core' of matters normally reserved to Article III courts. Each applicant was given three minutes to present their case to the board for why they should be chosen. Kurt Gonska appointed to fill vacant Rent Control Board seat. One commentator has written: "It was for a long time maintained by both eminent textwriters and by the courts... that the legislature is powerless to delegate judicial duties to administrative officers.
Our holding is limited by the facts of this case: we consider only the propriety of an administrative order requiring immediate payment of money or authorizing immediate withholding of money that would otherwise be owed. Many litigants take this risk; it is not a risk with constitutional significance. 3d 365] term on a licensee, and these cases do not foreclose the possibility that, under appropriate circumstances, an agency without licensing power should likewise be allowed to make such restitutive awards. Madok filed a statement saying he did not intend to raise or spend more than $1, 000. On the other hand, our prior licensing cases have accepted without constitutional debate the authority of licensing agencies to impose a restitutive award as a probationary [49 Cal. 00 per month, retroactive to April 1, 1983, on the first day of each month into the trust account of [plaintiff's law firm]... pending entry of judgment in this case. "A landlord or tenant aggrieved by any action or decision of the Board may seek judicial review by appealing to the appropriate court within the jurisdiction. " Indeed, we observe that after the award in this case, the Charter Amendment was revised to delete the Board's power to award such damages -- see ante, footnote 2. ) 12), unanimously hold that no jury trial right exists as to adjudication of a matter otherwise properly within the regulatory power of an administrative agency. A treble damage award for violating administrative regulations does not endanger judicial hegemony over traditional common law actions. 381, 400] in overruling a similar delegation of powers argument, 'To hold that there was [an unconstitutional delegation] would be to turn back the clock on at least a half a century of administrative law. '" It also modified provision "B, " absolving tenant Plevka of responsibility to place in trust the withheld rents of April, May, and June, and ordering instead that he begin in July to place rents in the trust account. 2d 282, 285-287]; Department of Natural Resources v. Santa monica rent control board members ... p. Linchester Sand & G. (1975) 274 Md.
Neither statute has faced a challenge based on the agency's constitutional authority to order such remedies, although our courts have affirmed administrative decisions imposing such damages. C), (d) & (f) (board may impose "[p]robation, " "[s]uspension of the right to practice" and "[s]uch other penalties as the board deems fit"); see generally Gov. Christopher M. Harding, Mark Garrett, Lawrence & Harding and Rhodes, Maloney Hart, Mullen, Jakle & Harding for Plaintiff and Respondent. See CFTC, supra, 478 U. Because of "unfair, unjust, destructive and demoralizing trade practices" that constituted a "constant menace" to California's citizens and degraded [49 Cal. Santa monica rent control board members wordpress. 465, 550 P. 2d 1001]), and extends only so far as necessary to set and regulate rents. 344, 346), the Board may review the rents actually charged, and order necessary adjustments to assure compliance with its price control regulations. Abrescia considered a run for the board in 1988 but decided not to after other candidates whose views she shared entered the race. Subsequently the court has made clear that its public rights doctrine does not require participation by the government as a party of record in the administrative litigation.
The court struck the penalty provision before it, however, because the law provided no standard by which the board was to impose penalties. The omitted footnote reads: "The presumption against displacing even widespread statutory practice is of course not irrebuttable. An assortment of remedial powers conferred on the landlord-tenant board were challenged: "(1) to impose a civil penalty not exceeding $1, 000; [¶] (2) to award money damages [to either party] not exceeding $1, 000; [¶] (3) to award payments for temporary substitute housing; [¶] (4) to terminate leases; [¶] (5) to order repairs; [and] [¶] (6) to order the return of security deposits and rental moneys paid. LOCAL ELECTIONS: RENT CONTROL BOARD : Tenants' Slate Holds Upper Hand : Santa Monica: The fate of two competing rent control propositions, however, is still unclear. Section 1808 provides for review of the Board's decision. Furthermore, former subdivision (b) of section 1809 established an alternative administrative remedy: "In lieu of filing a civil action as provided for in Section 1809 (a), the Board shall establish by rule and regulation a hearing procedure [to determine claimed violations of the regulatory system]. Guinn, a former Rent Board employee, was the Board's unanimous choice to replace Caroline Torosis, who resigned after being elected to the City Council in November.