CIV § 1942.5

180-Day Retaliatory Eviction Ban | CIV § 1942.5

CIV § 1942.5 prohibits landlords from evicting, raising rent, or decreasing services for 180 days after tenant complaints, setting $100 to $2,000 in penalties.

Official text CIV § 1942.5 — California

(a) If the lessor retaliates against the lessee because of the exercise by the lessee of the lessee’s rights under this chapter or because of the lessee’s complaint to an appropriate agency as to tenantability of a dwelling, and if the lessee of a dwelling is not in default as to the payment of rent, the lessor may not recover possession of a dwelling in any action or proceeding, cause the lessee to quit involuntarily, increase the rent, or decrease any services within 180 days of any of the following:

(1) After the date upon which the lessee, in good faith, has given notice pursuant to Section 1942, has provided notice of a suspected bed bug infestation, or has made an oral complaint to the lessor regarding tenantability.

(2) After the date upon which the lessee, in good faith, has filed a written complaint, or an oral complaint which is registered or otherwise recorded in writing, with an appropriate agency, of which the lessor has notice, for the purpose of obtaining correction of a condition relating to tenantability.

(3) After the date of an inspection or issuance of a citation, resulting from a complaint described in paragraph (2) of which the lessor did not have notice.

(4) After the filing of appropriate documents commencing a judicial or arbitration proceeding involving the issue of tenantability.

(5) After entry of judgment or the signing of an arbitration award, if any, when in the judicial proceeding or arbitration the issue of tenantability is determined adversely to the lessor. In each instance, the 180-day period shall run from the latest applicable date referred to in paragraphs (1) to (5), inclusive.

(b) A lessee may not invoke subdivision (a) more than once in any 12-month period.

(c) To report, or to threaten to report, the lessee or individuals known to the landlord to be associated with the lessee to immigration authorities is a form of retaliatory conduct prohibited under subdivision (a). This subdivision shall in no way limit the definition of retaliatory conduct prohibited under this section.

(d) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), it is unlawful for a lessor to increase rent, decrease services, cause a lessee to quit involuntarily, bring an action to recover possession, or threaten to do any of those acts, for the purpose of retaliating against the lessee because the lessee has lawfully organized or participated in a lessees’ association or an organization advocating lessees’ rights or has lawfully and peaceably exercised any rights under the law. In an action brought by or against the lessee pursuant to this subdivision, the lessee shall bear the burden of producing evidence that the lessor’s conduct was, in fact, retaliatory.

(e) To report, or to threaten to report, the lessee or individuals known to the landlord to be associated with the lessee to immigration authorities is a form of retaliatory conduct prohibited under subdivision (d). This subdivision shall in no way limit the definition of retaliatory conduct prohibited under this section.

(f) This section does not limit in any way the exercise by the lessor of the lessor’s rights under any lease or agreement or any law pertaining to the hiring of property or the lessor’s right to do any of the acts described in subdivision (a) or (d) for any lawful cause. Any waiver by a lessee of the lessee’s rights under this section is void as contrary to public policy.

(g) Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) to (f), inclusive, a lessor may recover possession of a dwelling and do any of the other acts described in subdivision (a) within the period or periods prescribed therein, or within subdivision (d), if the notice of termination, rent increase, or other act, and any pleading or statement of issues in an arbitration, if any, states the ground upon which the lessor, in good faith, seeks to recover possession, increase rent, or do any of the other acts described in subdivision (a) or (d). If the statement is controverted, the lessor shall establish its truth at the trial or other hearing.

(h) Any lessor or agent of a lessor who violates this section shall be liable to the lessee in a civil action for all of the following:

(1) The actual damages sustained by the lessee.

(2) Punitive damages in an amount of not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than two thousand dollars ($2,000) for each retaliatory act where the lessor or agent has been guilty of fraud, oppression, or malice with respect to that act.

(i) In any action brought for damages for retaliatory eviction, the court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party if either party requests attorney’s fees upon the initiation of the action.

(j) The remedies provided by this section shall be in addition to any other remedies provided by statutory or decisional law.

(k) A lessor does not violate subdivision (c) or (e) by complying with any legal obligation under any federal government program that provides for rent limitations or rental assistance to a qualified tenant.

(l) This section shall become operative on October 1, 2021.

Text as published in the 2026 snapshot of the code.

Source: Vaquill Open US Law, compiled from official state publishers (huggingface.co), reproduced under license CC BY 4.0.

Read this provision at the official source →

What it actually says

Section 1942.5 is a timing rule with teeth. Subdivision (a) says that where the landlord retaliates because the tenant exercised rights under the chapter or complained to an appropriate agency about tenantability, and the tenant is not in default on rent, the landlord may not recover possession, cause the tenant to quit involuntarily, increase the rent or decrease any services within 180 days of five listed events: the tenant's good faith notice under § 1942, a bed bug notice or an oral complaint about tenantability; a good faith written complaint, or a recorded oral complaint, to an agency of which the landlord has notice; an inspection or citation resulting from such a complaint even where the landlord had no notice of it; the filing of documents commencing a judicial or arbitration proceeding about tenantability; and entry of judgment or an arbitration award where tenantability was decided against the landlord. Where several apply, the 180 days runs from the latest.

Two limits sit on subdivision (a). The tenant must not be in default on rent, and under subdivision (b) may not invoke the subdivision more than once in any 12-month period. Subdivision (c) adds that reporting or threatening to report the tenant, or people the landlord knows are associated with the tenant, to immigration authorities is retaliatory conduct under subdivision (a).

Subdivision (d) is a separate and wider prohibition that is not tied to the 180 days: it is unlawful for a landlord to increase rent, decrease services, cause a tenant to quit involuntarily, bring an action to recover possession, or threaten any of those, to retaliate because the tenant lawfully organised or took part in a tenants' association or lawfully and peaceably exercised any rights under the law. Under subdivision (d) the tenant bears the burden of producing evidence that the conduct was in fact retaliatory. Subdivision (f) preserves the landlord's rights under the lease and other law, so the section prohibits a motive, not an act — which is why these disputes are decided on chronology and documents, and are worth taking to a lawyer.

When it applies

A notice to quit arrives two weeks after you reported the building to the city
The rent goes up sharply just after you asked for a repair in writing
Parking, storage or laundry access is withdrawn after a complaint
The landlord threatens to report you or a relative to immigration authorities
You helped start a tenants' association and the notices began afterwards
The landlord says the timing is coincidence and points to a business reason

What this section does not say

It does not protect a tenant who is behind on rent. Subdivision (a) applies only where the tenant is not in default as to the payment of rent.
It is not an indefinite shield. The subdivision (a) protection runs 180 days from the latest triggering event, and may not be invoked more than once in any 12 months.
It does not stop a landlord acting for a genuine reason. Subdivision (f) preserves the landlord's rights under the lease and other law; what the section forbids is the retaliatory motive.
Under subdivision (d) the burden is on the tenant. In an action under that subdivision the tenant bears the burden of producing evidence that the landlord's conduct was in fact retaliatory.
A complaint made to the landlord alone may not start the clock for every route. Paragraph (a)(2) is built around a complaint to an appropriate agency of which the landlord has notice, which is a different event from a text message to the landlord.

Worked examples

Invented situations, written to show how the wording bites. They are not real cases, not judgments and not precedent, and nothing here predicts what would happen in yours.

Illustrative example

A tenant reports a broken window and unsafe wiring to the city. Two weeks after the inspector's visit a 60-day notice to quit arrives, with the rent fully up to date.

How the wording applies

Subdivision (a) bars a retaliatory termination within 180 days of a qualifying event, but only where the tenant is not in default as to the payment of rent. The facts that decide it are the payment record and the gap between the complaint and the notice, and subdivision (f) still allows the landlord to act for a genuine, non-retaliatory reason, so the timing is evidence about motive rather than proof of it.

How the parties settled it

The notice is withdrawn and the repairs are completed to an agreed schedule, with both accepting that either side may end the tenancy on ordinary notice after a stated date.

Illustrative example

A month after a tenant emails a list of repairs, the rent goes up by the maximum allowed and the parking space is withdrawn. The landlord says the increase had been planned all year.

How the wording applies

The section covers increasing rent and decreasing services as well as eviction, and under subdivision (d) the tenant bears the burden of producing evidence that the conduct was in fact retaliatory. The fact this turns on is what the landlord can show about the plan: a schedule of increases applied to every unit in the building is a different picture from one applied to a single tenant.

How the parties settled it

The parking space is restored, the increase is deferred to the anniversary date and applied at the same percentage as other units, and the repairs are completed within an agreed period.

How courts have read it

Decisions construing this provision. The question and the summary are ours; the quoted sentence is the court's own words, taken from the published opinion. These are the decisions in our corpus, not every decision there is, and nothing here predicts any other case. Reported 1991 to 2017.

Morrison v. Vineyard Creek L.P., 193 Cal. App. 4th 1254 (2011)

Court of Appeal

What the court had to decide

Did the tenant establish that she was the prevailing party on her claim under Civil Code section 1942.5, warranting an award of attorney fees?

What it held

Morrison did not establish that she was the prevailing party on her Civil Code section 1942.5 claim, and thus the trial court properly denied attorney fees.

In the court's words

In sum, based on the settlement agreement itself, Morrison did not establish that she was the prevailing party on the relevant claims.

Source: Caselaw Access Project, CC0 1.0 Universal (public domain dedication).

Related sections

CIV § 1942 Deduct Up to One Month's Rent or Vacate: CIV § 1942 CIV § 1942.4 No Rent After 35 Days Unrepaired: CIV § 1942.4 CIV § 1940.2 Up to $2,000 penalty for landlord harassment – CIV §1940.2 CIV § 1946.2 Just Cause Required After 12 Months: CIV § 1946.2

That's the law. Now let's settle your problem.

Say what is happening. A neutral mediator hears your side and the other party's, and walks you both to a written agreement. In the advanced settings you can ask for the decision to be reasoned on the California Codes.

This is with

Or open a session directly and invite the other party.

We copy this text from the official publisher and re-check it against that source on every page load, but we cannot guarantee it is complete, current or free of error, and we accept no liability for any reliance on it. An amendment can take effect before a consolidation catches up. The publisher's own copy is linked below; where the two differ, it is the official one that counts.

This page reproduces the text of CIV § 1942.5 in force at the date shown and explains it in general terms. It is not legal advice and takes no account of the circumstances of your case, which can change the answer completely. For a live dispute, for limitation periods, and before taking any step in court, consult a qualified lawyer in California.

← All California law pages