Housing

Settlement agreement follows legal action by Attorney General Bonta, clears the way to bring badly needed homes to area 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today released a statement in response to the settlement agreement reached between the City of Goleta (Goleta) and the Shelby Family Partnership concerning a proposed affordable housing project. Located in Santa Barbara County, Goleta is experiencing an acute housing shortage. Approximately 75% of lower-income renter households and 64% of lower-income owner households in Goleta spend more than 30% of their income on housing. Attorney General Bonta filed an amicus brief in support of the project on December 20, 2024, following Goleta’s unlawful refusal to accept and process a preliminary application submitted by the Shelby Family Partnership that sought to add affordable homes to the project. On February 26, 2025, the Santa Barbara County Superior Court sided with Attorney General Bonta’s position and agreed that Goleta was required to allow the application to move forward. As a result of the settlement agreement reached between Goleta and the Shelby Family Partnership, Goleta has agreed to process the project application and related environmental documents expeditiously, with possible approval of 56 single-family homes — 19.6% of which would be affordable to lower-income households — by August 30, 2026.

“The settlement agreement is good news for Goleta, its surrounding communities, and all of California. There is simply no denying that we need more affordable housing up and down our state — every new unit that we can bring online matters,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The settlement agreement is also good news for the rule of law. My office argued that Goleta acted unlawfully by refusing to process the application for this Builder's Remedy project, the Santa Barbara County Superior Court agreed with us, and now, the application is finally moving forward. We will continue to monitor the situation closely.”

Details regarding the settlement agreement can be found here, and a copy of the court’s order can be found here. In addition, Attorney General Bonta recently issued a legal alert to help local officials understand the importance of the consistent statewide interpretation and application of California’s Housing Accountability Act — including local governments’ responsibility to timely process Builder’s Remedy applications.

Los californianos pueden enviar quejas o sugerencias relacionadas con la vivienda a housing@doj.ca.gov 

OAKLAND— El Fiscal General de California, Rob Bonta, emitió hoy una alerta al consumidor recordando a los californianos que es ilegal que los propietarios discriminen a los inquilinos, tomen represalias contra ellos o influyan en los inquilinos para que se muden amenazando con revelar el estatus migratorio de un inquilino a ICE o a las fuerzas del orden. Especialmente mientras la administración federal lleva a cabo su inhumana campaña de deportación masiva y crea una cultura de miedo y desconfianza, es crucial que los propietarios e inquilinos comprendan sus obligaciones y derechos según la ley de California. 

“Las familias de todo el país están experimentando miedo e incertidumbre como resultado de la agenda de inmigración inhumana del presidente Trump. Hoy, les recuerdo a los propietarios que es ilegal en California discriminar a los inquilinos o acosarlos o tomar represalias contra un inquilino al revelar su estatus migratorio a las autoridades”, dijo el Fiscal General Bonta. “Los inquilinos de California, sin importar su estatus migratorio, tienen derecho a una vivienda segura y a acceder a documentos de vivienda en un idioma que puedan entender. Usaré todo el poder de mi cargo para perseguir a quienes intentan aprovecharse de los inquilinos de California durante un momento ya de por sí difícil”.

La discriminación en materia de vivienda es ilegal en California. Es ilegal que los propietarios discriminen a los inquilinos por motivos de raza, origen nacional, orientación sexual, religión, identidad o expresión de género, estado de discapacidad, estado familiar, fuente de ingresos (incluida la asistencia para el alquiler, como los vales de la Sección 8), condición de veterano o ciertas otras características protegidas (Código de Gobierno § 12955).

Los proveedores de vivienda privada no pueden preguntar sobre el estatus migratorio o de ciudadanía de un inquilino o solicitante y no pueden discriminar en función del estatus migratorio, ciudadanía o idioma principal. Por ejemplo, los propietarios no pueden negarse a alquilar a un inquilino potencial, decir que un alquiler no está disponible para alquilar cuando sí lo está, cobrarle más alquiler a un inquilino, perseguir a un inquilino para desalojarlo o proporcionarle a un inquilino cláusulas de alquiler menos favorables en función de estas características (Código Civil § 1940.3(b); Código de Gobierno § 12955(d); Código Civil § 51).

Los propietarios no pueden acosar ni tomar represalias contra un inquilino al revelar su estatus migratorio a las fuerzas de seguridad (Código Civil §§ 1940.3(b), 1942.5). Los propietarios tampoco pueden amenazar con revelar el estatus migratorio de un inquilino para presionarlo a mudarse. (Código Civil § 1940.2).  En la mayoría de los casos, a los propietarios no se les permite preguntar a un inquilino o potencial inquilino su estatus migratorio o de ciudadanía.

Los inquilinos tienen derecho a documentos de vivienda que puedan entender. Según la ley de California, si los inquilinos se comunican principalmente en español, chino, tagalo, vietnamita o coreano con el propietario o administrador de la propiedad al solicitar un apartamento y firmar un contrato de arrendamiento, el propietario debe proporcionar al inquilino una traducción escrita del contrato de arrendamiento en ese idioma antes de que se firme el contrato de arrendamiento, siempre y cuando el contrato de arrendamiento sea por más de un mes. (Código Civil, § 1632(b)). Los documentos posteriores que realicen cambios sustanciales en el contrato de arrendamiento, como avisos de aumentos de alquiler o de tarifas, también deben traducirse. (Código Civil, § 1632(g)(1)).

Los propietarios que infrinjan estas leyes pueden verse obligados a pagar a los inquilinos por daños y perjuicios, sanciones y honorarios de abogados. Por ejemplo, un propietario que revele el estatus migratorio de un inquilino a cualquier autoridad de inmigración se le puede ordenar a pagar al inquilino una indemnización por daños y perjuicios equivalente a entre 6 y 12 veces el alquiler mensual (Código Civil § 1940.35(b)). Los inquilinos tienen una variedad de otros derechos y protecciones según la ley de California. Algunas ciudades y condados también tienen protecciones adicionales para los inquilinos, incluidas limitaciones a los desalojos y aumentos de alquiler. Para obtener más información, visitehttps://oag.ca.gov/tenants. 

Propietarios y autoridades de inmigración  

Si las autoridades de inmigración (ICE, por sus siglas en inglés) le exigen a un propietario que proporcione información sobre un inquilino, como la solicitud de alquiler u otros documentos del inquilino, el propietario puede solicitar que le muestren una orden judicial u otro poder. Los propietarios deben buscar asesoramiento legal de inmediato para determinar si deben cumplir con la solicitud y asegurarse de no infringir las leyes contra la discriminación y la privacidad de California. Los diferentes tipos de documentos que ICE puede presentar son los siguientes:

• Una orden administrativa de ICE o un aviso para comparecer a una audiencia de inmigración no le da a ICE poderes especiales para inspeccionar los registros de un propietario. Los propietarios deben buscar asesoramiento legal sobre cómo responder. Vea un ejemplo de orden administrativa de ICE y aviso de comparecencia aquí (consulte los Anexos B-D).
• Si ICE presenta una orden emitida por un tribunal federal u otra orden judicial firmada por un juez, los propietarios deben cumplir con prontitud y, cuando sea posible, buscar asesoramiento legal antes de responder. Vea un ejemplo de orden de un tribunal federal aquí (consulte los Anexos E y F).
• Los propietarios a quienes se les presente una citación para presentar documentos o pruebas deben buscar asesoramiento legal sobre cómo responder. Vea ejemplos de citaciones aquí (consulte los Anexos G y H). Obtenga más información sobre las citaciones y otros documentos utilizados para aplicar las medidas de control de inmigración aquí (véanse las páginas 17 a 19).
• Los propietarios no deben interferir físicamente con los oficiales de ICE cuando estos desempeñan sus funciones.

El Fiscal General Bonta se compromete a garantizar que se respeten los derechos de los inquilinos en California. El Fiscal General Bonta ha responsabilizado a los propietarios por violar las leyes de California en Bakersfield, Marysville y en todo California. El mes pasado, el Fiscal General Bonta demandó a un grupo de empresas de administración de propiedades y holdings inmobiliarios propiedad de Mike Nijjar y miembros de su familia. La familia Nijjar y sus empresas relacionadas poseen y administran más de 22,000 unidades de vivienda de alquiler en todo el estado, principalmente en vecindarios de bajos ingresos en los Condados de Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino y Kern, pero también se extienden hasta los Condados de Sacramento y San Joaquin. La demanda alega que las empresas de Nijjar violaron flagrantemente numerosas leyes de California al someter a los inquilinos a unidades inseguras, discriminar a los solicitantes con vales de vivienda de la Sección 8, cobrar de más el alquiler a algunos inquilinos, utilizar contratos de arrendamiento que engañan a los inquilinos sobre sus derechos legales y negarse a proporcionar traducciones al español de estos contratos de arrendamiento a pesar de solicitar de manera intencional inquilinos hispanohablantes. 

Es posible que los inquilinos conozcan las empresas de Nijjar por los nombres de sus empresas de administración de propiedades actuales y recientes: no solo PAMA Management, sino también I E Rental Homes, Bridge Management, Equity Management, Golden Management, Hightower Management, Legacy Management, Mobile Management, Pro Management y Regency Management. Se alienta a cualquier persona, incluidos inquilinos actuales o anteriores, que tenga información que pueda ser relevante para este caso a que comparta sus historias con nuestra oficina en oag.ca.gov/report. Para obtener más información sobre sus derechos como inquilino, visite aquí.  

Los californianos que enfrentan un desalojo o creen que su propietario ha violado sus derechos como inquilinos deben buscar ayuda legal de inmediato. Si no puede pagar un abogado, podría calificar para recibir asistencia legal gratuita o de bajo costo. Para encontrar una oficina de asistencia legal cerca de donde vive, visite lawhelpca.org y haga clic en la pestaña “Buscar Ayuda Legal”. Si no califica para recibir asistencia legal y necesita ayuda para encontrar un abogado, visite la página web del Colegio de Abogados de California para encontrar un servicio local de referencia de abogados certificados, o visite la página web de las Cortes de California para inquilinos que se enfrentan a desalojos.

Californians can send complaints or tips related to housing to housing@doj.ca.gov 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued a consumer alert reminding Californians that it is against the law for landlords to discriminate against tenants, retaliate against tenants, or influence tenants to move out by threatening to disclose a tenant’s immigration status to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or law enforcement. Especially as the federal administration carries out an inhumane campaign of mass deportation and creates a culture of fear and mistrust, it is crucial that landlords and tenants understand their obligations and rights under California law. 

“Families across the country are experiencing fear and uncertainly as a result of President Trump’s inhumane immigration agenda. Today, I remind landlords that it is illegal in California to discriminate against tenants or to harass or retaliate against a tenant by disclosing their immigration status to law enforcement,” said Attorney General Bonta. “California tenants — no matter their immigration status — have a right to safe housing and to access housing documents in a language they can understand. I will use the full force of my office to go after those who seek to take advantage of California tenants during an already challenging time.”

Housing discrimination is illegal in California. It is illegal for landlords to discriminate against tenants based on race, national origin, sexual orientation, religion, gender identity or expression, disability status, familial status, source of income (including rental assistance such as Section 8 vouchers), veteran status, or certain other protected characteristics (Gov. Code § 12955.)

Private housing providers cannot inquire about a tenant’s or applicant’s citizenship or immigration status and cannot discriminate on the basis of immigration status, citizenship, or primary language. For example, landlords cannot refuse to rent to a potential tenant, say that a rental is not available for rent when it is available, charge a tenant more rent, target a tenant for eviction, or provide a tenant with less favorable rental terms based on these characteristics (Civil Code § 1940.3(b); Gov. Code § 12955(d); Civil Code § 51.)

Landlords are never allowed to harass or retaliate against a tenant by disclosing their immigration status to law enforcement (Civil Code §§ 1940.3(b), 1942.5.) Landlords also cannot threaten to disclose a tenant’s immigration status in order to pressure a tenant to move out. (Civil Code § 1940.2.)  In most cases, landlords are not allowed to ask a tenant or potential tenant their immigration or citizenship status.

Tenants have the right to housing documents they can understand. Under California law, if tenants speak primarily Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog, Vietnamese, or Korean with the landlord or property manager when applying for an apartment and signing a lease, the landlord must provide the tenant with a written translation of the lease in that language before the lease is signed, if the lease is for longer than one month. (Civil Code § 1632(b).) Later documents making substantial changes to the lease, such as notices of rent increases or fee increases, must also be translated. (Civil Code § 1632(g)(1).)

Landlords who violate these laws may be required to pay tenants for damages, penalties, and attorney’s fees. For example, a landlord who discloses a tenant’s immigration status to any immigration authority may be ordered to pay the tenant statutory damages equal to 6 to 12 times the monthly rent (Civil Code § 1940.35(b).) Tenants have an array of other rights and protections under California law. Some cities and counties also have additional renter protections, including limitations on evictions and rent increases. For more information, please visit https://oag.ca.gov/tenants. 

Landlords and Immigration Authorities  

If immigration authorities like ICE demand tenant information from a landlord, such as a tenant’s rental application or other documents, the landlord may ask to see a warrant or other authority. Landlords should immediately seek legal advice to determine whether they must comply and to ensure that they do not violate California’s anti-discrimination and privacy laws. There are different types of documents that ICE may present: 

• An ICE administrative warrant or a notice to appear for an immigration hearing does not give ICE special powers to search a landlord’s records. Landlords should seek legal advice about how to respond. See a sample ICE administrative warrant and notice to appear here (see Appendix B-D).
• If ICE presents a warrant issued by a federal court or other court order signed by a judge, landlords should comply promptly and, where feasible, seek legal advice before responding. See a sample federal court warrant here (see Appendix E, F).
• Landlords presented with a subpoena for documents or evidence should seek legal advice on how to respond. See sample subpoenas here (see Appendix G, H). See more information about subpoenas and other documents used for immigration enforcement here (see pages 17-19).
• Landlords should not physically interfere with ICE officers in the performance of their duties. 

Attorney General Bonta is committed to ensuring the rights of tenants in California are respected. Attorney General Bonta has held landlords accountable for violating California laws in Bakersfield, Marysville, and across California. Last month, Attorney General Bonta sued a group of property management and real estate holding companies owned by Mike Nijjar and members of his family. The Nijjar family and their related companies own and manage over 22,000 rental housing units statewide, primarily in low-income neighborhoods in Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Kern Counties — but also spanning up to Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties. The lawsuit alleges Nijjar’s companies egregiously violated numerous California laws by subjecting tenants to unsafe units, discriminating against applicants with Section 8 housing vouchers, overcharging some tenants for rent, using leases that deceive tenants about their legal rights, and refusing to provide Spanish translations of these leases despite intentionally soliciting Spanish-speaking tenants. 

Tenants may know Nijjar’s companies by the names of their current and recent property management companies: not only PAMA Management, but also I E Rental Homes, Bridge Management, Equity Management, Golden Management, Hightower Management, Legacy Management, Mobile Management, Pro Management, and Regency Management. Anyone — including current or former tenants — who has information that might be relevant to this case are encouraged to share their stories with our office by going to oag.ca.gov/report. To learn more about your rights as a tenant, please visit here.  

Californians who are facing eviction or believe their landlord has violated their tenant rights should seek legal help immediately. If you cannot afford a lawyer, you may qualify for free or low-cost legal aid. To find a legal aid office near where you live, visit lawhelpca.org and click on the “Find Legal Help” tab. If you do not qualify for legal aid and need help finding a lawyer, visit the California State Bar webpage to find a local certified lawyer referral service, or visit the California Courts’ webpage for tenants facing evictions. 

 A copy of this press release is available in Spanish here.  

Regulations developed to prevent discriminatory housing practices, racially segregated neighborhoods 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today co-led a coalition of 21 attorneys general in sending a letter to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) opposing a proposed rule that would rollback critical fair housing regulations that prohibit discrimination in the marketing of affordable housing. The Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing (AFHM) regulations require owners of federally assisted housing to target advertising and outreach regarding their properties to communities that otherwise might not have learned about the opportunity to live there. The proposed rule would repeal these regulations, which are designed to ensure that federally assisted housing providers do not market available housing to only certain groups as had been done in the past to maintain racially segregated neighborhoods.

“The Trump Administration is working to roll back critical fair housing regulations that prohibit discrimination — protections put in place in the 70’s to combat the insidious persistence of segregated neighborhoods — protections that are essential today to ensure that housing opportunities for underserved communities remain accessible,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The national housing crisis is driven by a shortage of housing supply and unaffordability that disproportionately affects communities of color. Today I urge the Administration to look closely at the mandate they inherited in the Fair Housing Act and understand that letting a broader range of buyers know about affordable housing opportunities that are available to them is necessary to ensure that these opportunities remain accessible for all Americans.” 

Historically, government at all levels throughout the United States, along with private developers and mortgage lending institutions, played an active role in creating segregated living patterns, which perpetuated inequalities in access to opportunity. The Fair Housing Act, through AFHM regulations, requires HUD and recipients of federal funds from HUD to administer their programs in a manner to affirmatively further fair housing by ensuring that the agency and its program participants take meaningful actions to overcome patterns of segregation, promote fair housing choice, eliminate disparities in opportunities, and foster inclusive communities. The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex (including gender and sexual orientation), familial status, and disability. 

AFHM requirements require that owners and developers of HUD-subsidized housing have marketing programs in place to reach groups that are protected from discrimination by the Fair Housing Act and are not as likely to apply for such housing. Housing providers must then select methods of outreach and advertising, that are designed to reach those communities. Too often, the populations that are the least likely to apply are those that are underrepresented in the area where the property is located, especially affordable properties in high opportunity areas — areas that offer residents enhanced access to economic mobility and improved living conditions. The AFHM regulations do not dictate which tenants an owner must select for a unit, and nothing prohibits landlords from advertising through other media that reach different populations as well.

In the letter, the attorneys general argue that the proposed repeal of these longstanding regulations is in direct contradiction with the mandate of the Fair Housing Act — to affirmatively further fair housing through ensuring non-discriminatory marketing practices — especially so given the lack of: 

• a replacement rule; 
• an explanation of how HUD will affirmatively ensure that covered program participants are not engaging in discriminatory and unlawful housing marketing practices in violation of federal law; and 
• legally sufficient or evidence-based justifications for this total reversal of over 50 years of federal housing policy and law.

The attorneys general hold a vested interest in ensuring equal access to housing and eradicating discrimination in communities nationwide. The national housing crisis is driven by a shortage of housing supply and skyrocketing unaffordability that disproportionately affects communities of color. The highest disparities are experienced by Black households — a byproduct of systemic racism and policies that targeted Black people and neighborhoods home to primarily Black people. Data on fair housing complaints confirm that proactive fair housing measures, including in advertising, are as vital as ever. In 2023, record high levels of fair housing complaints were submitted to HUD, the U.S. Department of Justice, and other fair housing organizations; the annual number of complaints has consistently risen. 

In sending today’s letter Attorney General Bonta and the attorneys general from Maryland and New York lead the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia.   

A copy of the letter can be found here. 

Attorney General Bonta and Newsom Administration have supported Newport Beach in lawsuits attacking City’s general plan 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta, Governor Gavin Newsom, and California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Director Gustavo Velasquez today issued a statement after a trial court sided with Newport Beach and determined that the City's actions to implement its housing element without voter approval are valid, despite a charter provision seeming to require a vote. Last month, Attorney General Bonta and the Newsom Administration filed a joint amicus brief in support of the City of Newport Beach’s efforts to comply with state housing laws after opponents sued the City for taking steps to implement its housing plan, including rezoning, as required under the state’s Housing Element Law. 

“As California continues to deal with a housing crisis of epic proportions, Newport Beach has said yes to more homes and is endeavoring to build its fair share of housing under California law,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “Today, I celebrate a court decision that clears the way for Newport Beach to continue its work. Cities statewide are obligated to plan for their fair share of housing; my office will continue to hold accountable those who refuse and stick up for localities who are trying to do the right thing.”

“Every community must do their part to build housing and address homelessness. We will continue to support Newport Beach’s efforts to follow the law and create more housing opportunities for its residents,” said Governor Gavin Newsom.

“HCD is committed to holding jurisdictions accountable to state housing law, and we are proud to stand behind those communities—like Newport Beach—that are putting in the work to see sufficient housing built for all income levels,” said HCD Director Gustavo Velasquez. “Californians need the ability to be full participants in the life of their community—living, learning, and working in a place they can call home. We are grateful for our strong partnership with the Attorney General to make that a reality.” 

BACKGROUND

The housing element is a crucial planning tool to accommodate housing for all Californians across all household income levels, and to redress historical redlining and disinvestment. Under state law, every city and county in California must periodically update its housing element to meet its share of the regional and statewide housing needs.  State law also requires certain housing element programs to be completed by specific deadlines, including any zoning code amendments necessary to accommodate the city or county's share of the regional housing need for each income level.

To effectuate its housing element programs, Newport Beach amended its land use element and zoning code to allow residential development in more areas of the City using new overlay zoning districts in six focus areas. Opponents sued the City arguing that, regardless of state Housing Element Law, these changes must be approved by voters before they are effective because of a provision in the City’s charter. The Court disagreed and adopted Attorney General Bonta and the Newsom Administration’s position that the City properly interpreted its own charter provision, and that voter approval measures cannot be construed in a way that obstructs mandatory obligations under state Housing Element Law. 

OAKLAND — El Fiscal General de California, Rob Bonta, presentó una demanda contra un grupo de empresas de administración de propiedades y holdings inmobiliarios propiedad del magnate de viviendas de alquiler del sur de California Swaranjit “Mike” Nijjar, su hermana Daljit “DJ” Kler y otros miembros de su familia. La demanda, tras una investigación de tres años, alega que las empresas de Nijjar, conocidas comúnmente como PAMA Management, violan de manera atroz numerosas leyes de California al someter a los inquilinos a unidades inseguras marcadas por plagas de cucarachas y roedores, techos con goteras, desbordamiento de aguas residuales y otros problemas. La demanda también alega que las empresas discriminan a los solicitantes con vales de vivienda de la Sección 8, cobran alquileres excesivos a algunos inquilinos y utilizan contratos de alquiler que engañan a los inquilinos sobre sus derechos legales, entre otras violaciones. La mayoría de los inquilinos que viven en propiedades de PAMA tienen ingresos bajos o fijos, y muchos se enfrentan a la horrible elección entre soportar condiciones graves y a veces catastróficas o quedarse sin hogar. En la denuncia que se presentó hoy en el Condado de Los Angeles, el Fiscal General Bonta solicita sanciones, restitución total por el daño financiero sufrido por los inquilinos, restitución de las ganancias obtenidas de manera ilícita y medidas cautelares que prohíban al Sr. Nijjar, a PAMA y a las empresas relacionadas continuar con estas prácticas comerciales ilegales y atroces. 

“PAMA y las empresas propiedad de Mike Nijjar y su familia son conocidas por sus condiciones deplorables y precarias, algunas tan malas que los residentes han sufrido resultados trágicos. Nuestra investigación sobre las propiedades de Nijjar reveló que PAMA se aprovecho de familias vulnerables, negándose a invertir los recursos necesarios para erradicar las plagas, reparar techos anticuados e instalar sistemas de plomería que funcionen, todo mientras engañaba a los inquilinos sobre sus derechos a demandar a su propietario y exigir reparaciones”, dijo el Fiscal General Bonta. “Sin embargo, Nijjar y sus asociados han tratado demanda tras demanda y violación del código tras violación del código como el costo de hacer negocios y se les ha permitido operar y cobrar cientos de millones de dólares cada año a familias que duermen, se duchan y alimentan a sus hijos en condiciones insalubres y deplorables. Ya es suficiente. Hoy intervengo. Estoy agradecido con todas las personas que dieron un paso al frente, incluido el Equipo de Protección al Consumidor del Departamento de Justicia, los periodistas de California que dieron la voz de alarma, los funcionarios encargados de hacer cumplir el código local que responden de manera incansable a las quejas de los inquilinos y, sobre todo, los inquilinos de PAMA que hablaron sobre sus angustiosas experiencias.” 

Antecedentes

La familia Nijjar y sus empresas relacionadas poseen y administran más de 22,000 unidades de vivienda de alquiler en todo el estado, principalmente en vecindarios de bajos ingresos en los Condados de Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino y Kern, pero también se extienden hasta los Condados de Sacramento y San Joaquin. Los funcionarios encargados de hacer cumplir el código en estas comunidades citan rutinariamente las propiedades de la familia Nijjar por violar las normas mínimas de habitabilidad. En los últimos años, las empresas de la familia han resuelto docenas de demandas alegando defectos de habitabilidad y condiciones inseguras; estas demandas afectaron a cientos de inquilinos, incluidos algunos niños que resultaron gravemente heridos en propiedades de PAMA. En 2016, un bebé murió en un incendio en una de las casas móviles de PAMA en el condado de Kern, que no estaba permitida para la ocupación humana. 

A pesar de todo, esto ha sido la practica de negocio en curso para Mike Nijjar y sus entidades corporativas: siguen con la compra de propiedades nuevas, ignoran las peticiones de reparaciones de los inquilinos y operan bajo una lista cada vez mayor de nombres de empresas que lo hace aun mas dificil que los inquilinos sepan a quién le están alquilando. Los inquilinos pueden conocerlos por los nombres de sus empresas de administración de propiedades actuales y recientes: no solo PAMA Management, sino también I E Rental Homes, Bridge Management, Equity Management, Golden Management, Hightower Management, Legacy Management, Mobile Management, Pro Management y Regency Management.  

Luego de una extensa cobertura mediática por parte de la prensa y las partes interesadas, el Departamento de Justicia de California inició una investigación sobre PAMA a fines de 2022 que descubrió violaciones generalizadas de habitabilidad y otras violaciones graves de los derechos de los inquilinos. 

Violación de las normas básicas de habitabilidad 

La demanda del Fiscal General alega que, al no realizar un mantenimiento adecuado de las unidades, PAMA y las empresas relacionadas pusieron en riesgo inmediato la seguridad y la salud de los inquilinos. Las unidades PAMA sufren amplios problemas de mantenimiento, entre los más comunes se encuentran:

• intrusión de agua debido a goteras en los techos y plomería anticuada; 
• daños estructurales causados por la intrusión de agua y el mantenimiento retrasado;
• mal funcionamiento de las tuberías, incluidas las aguas residuales superficiales; y 
• plagas de cucarachas y roedores. 

Estas violaciones no son sólo un error; son parte de prácticas comercialesen curso. PAMA aplaza las inversiones necesarias en mantenimiento a favor de reparaciones rápidas y baratas; utiliza operarios no cualificados incluso para trabajos especializados; ofrece poca o ninguna formación al personal, muchos de los cuales no tienen experiencia en gestión de propiedades; y no realiza un seguimiento sistemático y rutinario de las solicitudes de mantenimiento, que a menudo se pierden o nunca se completan. PAMA está al tanto de estos problemas y sabe que sus operaciones generan condiciones inhabitables, pero estas prácticas comerciales han persistido durante años.

Cláusulas de alquiler engañosas

La demanda también alega que PAMA y las empresas relacionadas celebraron decenas de miles de contratos de alquiler con cláusulas ilegales y engañosas que intentan invalidar los derechos garantizados por la ley. Estos derechos incluyen el derecho del inquilino a demandar a su propietario y presentar su caso ante un jurado; a realizar reparaciones que el propietario descuidó y deducir el costo de dichas reparaciones del alquiler; y a que el propietario ejerza un deber de cuidado para evitar lesiones personales o daños a la propiedad personal.

PAMA también violó la ley de California al negarse a proporcionar traducciones en español de estos contratos de alquiler y otros documentos importantes, a pesar de solicitar de manera intencionada inquilinos hispanohablantes a través de publicidad en dos idiomas y la contratación de empleados hispanohablantes para llenar unidades vacantes y comunicarse con los inquilinos.  

Discriminación contra inquilinos con vales de la Sección 8 

La demanda alega además que PAMA y las empresas relacionadas discriminan a los solicitantes con vales de la Sección 8 que buscan una vivienda. Los vales de la Sección 8 ayudan a las familias de bajos ingresos a alquilar viviendas a propietarios privados, lo que permite que la familia pague parte del alquiler mientras el gobierno paga el resto. En California, es ilegal discriminar a un inquilino o solicitante de vivienda en función de su fuente de ingresos, incluida la recepción de asistencia de alquiler de la Sección 8. Las empresas de administración relacionadas con PAMA han violado la ley al decirles a los solicitantes con vales que hay una lista de espera para las unidades o que no hay unidades de alquiler disponibles, incluso cuando de hecho hay unidades disponibles y se están alquilando a solicitantes sin vales de la Sección 8. 

Aumentos ilegales de alquiler y otras conductas indebidas

La demanda del Fiscal General también alega violaciones a la Ley de Protección de Inquilinos de California (TPA) en más de 2,000 unidades, donde PAMA y empresas relacionadas trasladaron ciertos costos obligatorios de servicios públicos, que solían ser pagados por el propietario, a sus inquilinos. Para los inquilinos protegidos por la TPA, es ilegal que los propietarios ignoren el límite de alquiler cuando exigen a los inquilinos que paguen tarifas o cargos de servicios públicos nuevos o mayores. La denuncia alega que estas empresas comenzaron a cobrar a los inquilinos por servicios públicos compartidos, como el agua, a través de un sistema de facturación de servicios públicos proporcional, conocido como “RUBS”, obligando a los inquilinos a pagar cargos por servicios públicos que estaban fuera de su control. La combinación de estas nuevas tarifas de servicios públicos y los aumentos anuales del alquiler resultaron en aumentos totales de hasta el 20%: más del doble del límite de alquiler de la TPA. Además, PAMA y las empresas relacionadas violaron los requisitos de notificación de la TPA al no incluir en los contratos de alquiler de los inquilinos las divulgaciones exigidas por ley para que el inquilino sepa si las protecciones de la TPA (que incluyen controles de aumento de alquiler y limitaciones a los desalojos) se aplican a ellos. 

Además de las violaciones anteriores, la demanda alega que PAMA y las empresas relacionadas emitieron avisos de desalojo ilegales a docenas o cientos de inquilinos, y también que las empresas no han cumplido con los requisitos básicos de licencia inmobiliaria desde 2020.

Se alienta a cualquier persona, incluidos inquilinos actuales o anteriores, que tenga información que pueda ser relevante para este caso a que comparta sus historias con nuestra oficina en oag.ca.gov/report. 

Para obtener más información sobre sus derechos como inquilino, consulte aquí.

Una copia de la denuncia está disponible aquí.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Bonta today filed a lawsuit against a group of property management and real estate holding companies owned by Southern California rental-housing tycoon Swaranjit “Mike” Nijjar, his sister Daljit “DJ” Kler, and other members of his family. The lawsuit filed today, after a three-year investigation, alleges Nijjar’s companies, commonly known as PAMA Management, egregiously violated numerous California laws by subjecting tenants to unsafe units marked by cockroach and rodent infestations, leaking roofs, overflowing sewage, and other problems. The lawsuit also alleges that the companies discriminate against applicants with Section 8 housing vouchers, overcharge some tenants for rent, and use leases that deceive tenants about their legal rights, among other violations. Most tenants living in PAMA properties have low or fixed incomes, and many are faced with the horrible choice between enduring serious and sometimes catastrophic conditions or becoming homeless. In the complaint filed today in Los Angeles County, Attorney General Bonta seeks penalties, full restitution for financial harm to tenants, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, and injunctive relief barring Mr. Nijjar, PAMA, and related companies from continuing these unlawful and appalling business practices. 

“PAMA and the companies owned by Mike Nijjar and his family are notorious for their rampant, slum-like conditions — some so bad that residents have suffered tragic results. Our investigation into Nijjar’s properties revealed PAMA exploited vulnerable families, refusing to invest the resources needed to eradicate pest infestations, fix outdated roofs, and install functioning plumbing systems, all while deceiving tenants about their rights to sue their landlord and demand repairs,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Nijjar and his associates have treated lawsuit after lawsuit and code violation after code violation as the cost of doing business and have been allowed to operate and collect hundreds of millions of dollars each year from families who sleep, shower, and feed their children in unhealthy and deplorable conditions. Enough is enough — today, I step in. I am grateful to all the people who came forward, including the DOJ Consumer Protection Team, California reporters who sounded the alarm, local code enforcement officers who tirelessly respond to tenant complaints, and, most of all, PAMA tenants who spoke out about their distressing experiences.” 

Background 

The Nijjar family and their related companies own and manage over 22,000 rental housing units statewide, primarily in low-income neighborhoods in Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Kern Counties — but also spanning up to Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties. Code enforcement officers in these communities routinely cite the Nijjar family’s properties for violating minimum habitability standards. In recent years, the family’s companies have settled dozens of lawsuits alleging habitability defects and unsafe conditions; these lawsuits have involved hundreds of tenants, including some children who have become seriously injured at PAMA properties. In 2016, an infant died in a fire at one of PAMA’s mobile homes in Kern County — which was not permitted for human occupancy. 

Through this all, it has been business as usual for Mike Nijjar and his corporate entities, which continue to buy new properties, ignore tenants’ pleas for repairs, and operate under an expanding list of company names that makes it difficult for tenants to understand who they are renting from. Tenants may know them by the names of their current and recent property management companies: not only PAMA Management, but also, I E Rental Homes, Bridge Management, Equity Management, Golden Management, Hightower Management, Legacy Management, Mobile Management, Pro Management, and Regency Management. 

Following extensive reporting from the press and stakeholders, the California Department of Justice began an investigation into PAMA in late 2022 that uncovered widespread habitability violations and other egregious violations of tenants’ rights. 

Violation of Basic Habitability Standards 

The Attorney General’s lawsuit alleges that, through their failure to properly maintain units, PAMA and related companies put tenant safety and health at immediate risk. While PAMA units suffer from extensive maintenance issues, among the most common are:

• water intrusion from leaking roofs and outdated plumbing; 
• structural damage caused by water intrusion and deferred maintenance;
• malfunctioning plumbing, including surfacing sewage; and 
• cockroach and rodent infestations. 

These violations are not just a mistake; they are part of ongoing business practices. PAMA defers necessary investments in maintenance in favor of quick and cheap repairs; uses unskilled handymen even for specialized work; provides little to no training to staff, many of whom have no experience in property management; and fails to track maintenance requests in any systematic, routine fashion — requests are often lost or never completed. PAMA is aware of these issues and knows their operations lead to uninhabitable conditions, yet these business practices have persisted for years.

Deceptive Lease Terms

The lawsuit also alleges that PAMA and related companies entered into tens of thousands of leases with unlawful and deceptive terms that attempt to invalidate rights guaranteed by law. Such rights include the tenant’s right to sue their landlord and present their case to a jury; to make repairs that the landlord neglected and deduct the cost of such repairs from rent; and to have the landlord exercise a duty of care to prevent personal injury or personal property damage.

PAMA also violated California law by refusing to provide Spanish translations of these leases and other important documents, despite intentionally soliciting Spanish-speaking tenants through dual-language advertising and the hiring of Spanish-speaking employees to fill vacant units and communicate with tenants.  

Discrimination against Tenants with Section 8 Vouchers

The lawsuit further alleges that PAMA and related companies discriminate against applicants with Section 8 vouchers who are looking for a home. Section 8 vouchers help low-income families rent housing from private landlords, allowing the family to pay part of the rent while the government pays the rest. In California, it is unlawful to discriminate against a tenant or housing applicant based on their source of income, including their receipt of Section 8 rental assistance. Management companies related to PAMA have violated the law by telling applicants with vouchers that there is a waiting list for units, or that no rental units are available, even when units are in fact available and are being rented to applicants without Section 8 vouchers. 

Unlawful Rent Increases and Other Misconduct

The Attorney General’s lawsuit also alleges violations of California’s Tenant Protection Act (TPA) at over 2,000 units, where PAMA and related companies shifted certain mandatory utilities costs — which used to be paid by the landlord — onto their tenants. For tenants protected by the TPA, it is unlawful for landlords to ignore the rent cap when requiring tenants to pay new or increased fees or utility charges. The complaint alleges that these companies began charging tenants for shared utilities, like water, through a ratio utility billing system, known as “RUBS,” forcing tenants to pay for utility charges beyond their control. The combination of these new utility fees and annual rent increases resulted in total increases of up to 20% — more than double the TPA’s rent cap. Furthermore, PAMA and related companies violated the TPA’s notice requirements by failing to include in tenants’ leases legally mandated disclosures to let a tenant know whether the TPA’s protections — which include rent-increase controls and limitations on evictions — apply to them. 

In addition to the violations above, the lawsuit alleges that PAMA and related companies issued unlawful eviction notices to dozens or hundreds of tenants, and also that the companies have failed to comply with basic real-estate licensing requirements since 2020.

Anyone – including current or former tenants – who has information that might be relevant to this case are encouraged to share their stories with our office by going to oag.ca.gov/report. To learn more about your rights as a tenant, please visit here.  

A copy of the complaint can be found here. 

A Spanish version of this press release can be found here. 

 Alert emphasizes the importance of lawful and consistent processing of Builder’s Remedy applications across California 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued a legal alert to help California local officials understand the importance of the consistent statewide interpretation and application of California’s Housing Accountability Act (HAA) — including local governments’ responsibility to timely process Builder’s Remedy applications. In the alert, Attorney General Bonta analyzes two recent court cases involving the cities of La Cañada Flintridge and Goleta to explain these responsibilities and highlight that local governments' faithful and expedient discharge of their duties is essential to resolving California’s housing shortage crisis and making housing more affordable for all Californians. 

 “California courts have been very clear about the interpretation of California housing law and the responsibility of local governments to follow the law and swiftly process Builder’s Remedy applications,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The legal alert today is intended to ensure local governments understand their responsibility to facilitate affordable housing: California expects nothing less and is committed to ensuring that all cities and counties are part of the solution — no exceptions.” 

Background on Housing Element and the Builders Remedy

Under the state’s Housing Element Law, every city and county in California must periodically update its housing element to meet its share of the regional and statewide housing needs. Among other things, a compliant housing element must include an assessment of housing needs, an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to meeting those needs, and a program to implement the policies, goals, and objectives of the housing element. 

Under California’s HAA, failure to adopt a timely and compliant local housing plan triggers the so-called “Builder’s Remedy.” Under the HAA's Builder’s Remedy provision, local governments subject to the Builder’s Remedy may not deny certain housing projects — in particular, those that include certain thresholds of low- or moderate-income units — for inconsistency with zoning or land use designation. While developers have submitted dozens of Builder’s Remedy applications in the past years, many noncompliant jurisdictions have been failing to process those applications in a timely fashion, leaving the state of California no choice but to step in. 

In the legal alert today, Attorney General Bonta highlights the results of two cases that make clear local governments’ responsibility and legal duty to process builders remedy applications. 

Cal. Housing Defense Fund v. City of La Cañada Flintridge 

In 2023, Attorney General Bonta, Governor Newsom, and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) filed a request to intervene in Cal. Housing Defense Fund v. City of La Cañada Flintridge, in order to uphold California’s housing laws, and reverse the City of La Cañada Flintridge’s denial of a mixed-use affordable housing project after it failed to comply with Housing Element Law between October 15, 2021 and November 17, 2023 —  also the time period in which the project’s application was considered. The affordable housing project, pursuant to the Builder’s Remedy, would bring approximately 80 mixed-income residential dwelling units, 14 hotel units, and 7,791 square feet of office space to the community. 

In 2024, the court held that La Cañada Flintridge did not have a housing element in substantial compliance with state law at the time a Builder’s Remedy application was submitted and ordered the City to process the application in accordance with the law. La Cañada Flintridge appealed this decision and was subsequently ordered to either post an appeal bond of $14 million or dismiss its appeal. La Cañada Flintridge dismissed its appeal. 

The key takeaways in this case include: 

• A Builder’s Remedy application vests at the time of submission of a SB 330 preliminary development application — a city cannot ‘backdate’ its housing element compliance date to an earlier date so as to avoid approving a Builder’s Remedy application.
• The refusal to process a timely Builder’s Remedy application is a violation of the HAA.

Shelby Family Partnership, L.P. v. City of Goleta

In 2024, Attorney General Bonta filed an amicus brief in support of a proposed affordable housing project in Goleta — a city located in Santa Barbara County that is experiencing an acute housing shortage. A housing development project by the Shelby Family Partnership would have created 56 single-family homes, 13 of which would be affordable to lower-income households. In 2023, Goleta unlawfully refused to process an SB 330 preliminary application, seeking to add the aforementioned affordable homes, based on its theory that SB 330 applies only to “new” projects.

On February 26, 2025, the superior court issued an order requiring Goleta to process the at-issue affordable housing project pursuant to state law, finding that:

• SB 330 is not limited only to “new” development projects and does not prevent applicants from amending an existing project — including submitting an application under the Builder’s Remedy; and
• Local governments cannot disapprove qualifying housing development projects, except in narrowly defined circumstances pursuant to the HAA. 

The legal alert goes on to explain consequences for the failure to properly implement in the Builder’s Remedy, such as a referral to and intervention by the Attorney General and penalties under the HAA — including a minimum fine of $10,000 per unit of the proposed project. If a local government appeals a court order finding that the local government violated the HAA, the local government must post an appeal bond or dismiss its appeal. The appeal bond guarantees that a project remains financially viable if the city or county loses the appeal. In 2024, La Cañada Flintridge appealed the decision ordering it to process a lawful builder's remedy application, and was ordered to either post an appeal bond of $14 million or dismiss its appeal. La Cañada Flintridge dismissed its appeal. These consequences emphasize the importance of the HAA and California’s intent to further promote housing development projects. 

The full legal alert can be found here. 

Attorney General Bonta and Newsom Administration file amicus briefs siding with Newport Beach in lawsuits attacking City’s general plan

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta and California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Director Gustavo Velasquez today announced that the Orange County Superior Court has granted their application to file amicus briefs in support of the City of Newport Beach’s efforts to comply with state housing law. Last year, two local organizations sued the City for taking steps to update and implement its housing element, or housing plan, as required under the state’s Housing Element Law. Specifically, the City amended its land use element to allow residential development in more of the City, adopted new overlay zoning districts to create more residential development capacity in six focus areas, adopted a set of objective development standards, and amended the City’s Local Coastal Program to be consistent with the City’s housing element. The local organizations suing the City contend that these changes must be approved by voters before they are effective because of a provision in the City’s charter. In their amicus briefs, Attorney General Bonta and the Newsom Administration agree with the City’s position that the City’s charter provision cannot be used to obstruct the state’s Housing Element Law.

“Too often, my office finds itself needing to hold local governments accountable for failing to follow our state’s housing laws. Right now, Newport Beach is attempting to do the right – and legal – thing, and I want to commend them for it,” said Attorney General Bonta. “In partnership with the Newsom Administration, we sought, and have received, court permission to file amicus briefs supporting the City’s efforts to build its fair share of housing. California is continuing to deal with a housing crisis of epic proportions. Now is the time for leaders at every level of government to say yes to cooperation and yes to more homes.”

“Newport Beach has done the work needed to adopt a compliant housing element, which is foundational to ensuring we meet state housing need for all income levels,” said HCD Director Gustavo Velasquez. “HCD is proud to stand with the City against efforts to stall implementation of its housing plan, and to help ensure the City remains compliant with Housing Element Law.”

The state’s Housing Element Law creates a comprehensive framework for statewide and regional coordination to ensure that each local government accommodates its fair share of new housing. Local governments must adopt general plans, and those general plans must include housing elements that substantially comply with the state’s Housing Element Law. Those housing elements must accommodate the housing “needs of all economic segments of the community.” At issue is Section 423, a provision in the City’s charter that subjects any major amendment to its general plan for voter approval before it can take effect. Critically, Section 423 also states that it “shall not apply if state or federal law precludes a vote of the voters on the amendment.”  

In their amicus briefs, Attorney General Bonta and the Newsom Administration underscore that: 

• In California, state law may preempt local law by implication if the local law contradicts or is inimical to the state law. Here, the City was legally required to complete rezoning to implement its housing element by February 12, 2025. Conditioning implementation of its housing element on the outcome of a Section 423 vote would render compliance with the Housing Element Law infeasible. 
• Vacating the City’s general plan amendment and zoning update with no legally sufficient alternative in place would violate the City’s housing element, which would in turn violate the state’s Housing Element Law. The City could face substantial legal consequences, including losing its permitting, subdivision, and rezoning authority. 
• If the City vacates the changes, it will no longer substantially comply with the state’s Housing Element Law, and the Builder’s Remedy will take effect. The Builder’s Remedy prevents local governments without compliant housing elements from using their local land use laws to deny certain types of new affordable housing developments. 
• The Builder’s Remedy is constitutional. One of the lawsuits argues that the Builder’s Remedy would not apply if the City was ordered to vacate the changes because the Builder’s Remedy violates the City’s home rule authority under the California Constitution. But the Builder’s Remedy is narrowly tailored to address the housing crisis, which is an issue of statewide concern.

A copy of the amicus briefs can be found here and here. A merits hearing is scheduled for June 17, 2025. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced co-leading a coalition of 21 attorneys general in filing an amicus brief in support of non-profit housing organizations harmed by the Trump Administration’s unlawful cancellation of Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) grants. Congress established FHIP in 1988, requiring the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to provide funds to non-profit housing organizations that carry out investigatory, enforcement, education, and outreach activities aimed at rooting out discrimination in the provision of housing. Congress has specifically appropriated funds to HUD for this purpose every year since FHIP’s inception. 

On February 27, HUD cancelled 78 preexisting FHIP grants — totaling approximately $30 million — effective immediately and with no prior warning. HUD offered no rationale for its action beyond a blanket assertion that the decision was made at the direction of President Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency because the grants purportedly “no longer effectuate…the program goals or agency priorities.” Three non-profit housing organizations that receive FHIP grants subsequently filed a class-action lawsuit — Massachusetts Fair Housing Center v. HUD — against the Trump Administration on behalf of all similarly situated organizations that had FHIP grants terminated on February 27. California is home to at least 7 fair housing organizations whose FHIP funds would be terminated. 

“As I’ve said over and over again, the Trump Administration is not above the law. My fellow attorneys general and I are proud to be supporting non-profit organizations that Congress tasked to root out housing discrimination in our communities. The termination of these grants was illegal, and they must be reinstated,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The stakes are high — many of these non-profit organizations would be forced to close their doors without the grants and our states would suffer severe harms in tackling housing discrimination.” 

On March 26, 2025, the class of non-profit housing organizations secured a temporary restraining order from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts requiring the Trump Administration to continue providing the FHIP grants. The court, however, later dissolved the temporary restraining order and the non-profit housing organizations are currently asking that it be reinstated.  

In the amicus brief, which was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the attorneys general argue that: 

• If allowed to take effect, HUD’s sudden and unlawful action will immediately and severely upend the important work of these FHIP organizations, resulting in more housing discrimination being left undetected and unredressed in their states. 
• In several crucial ways, the work done by the non-profit housing organizations complements the efforts of their states to provide safe, fair, and affordable housing to their residents while easing administrative burdens on their states. For example, a FHIP organization in California brought significant evidence to the California Civil Rights Department demonstrating that a property-management company in the San Francisco Bay Area had adopted overly restrictive rules that effectively barred rental applications from families with young children. Based on that evidence, the Department filed a lawsuit, which yielded a consent decree in 2023 prohibiting these rules and requiring restitutionary payments to affected families. 
• The non-profit housing organizations are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims. HUD’s determination to void 78 preexisting FHIP grants, with no explanation or consideration of the consequences to their states and their residents and communities, was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. 

Joining Attorney General Bonta in co-leading today’s amicus brief are New York Attorney General Leticia James and Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell. They are joined by the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. 

A copy of the amicus brief can be found here.