Judge Backs Off Order Limiting Reports About Eviction Actions

A Los Angeles Superior Court judge who this week staked out new territory in the area of tenants’ rights backed away from that position Friday, partly rescinding an order limiting information about past eviction actions that could be reported to potential landlords.

Judge Jerry K. Fields ruled Tuesday that eviction actions ending without a clear-cut judgment could not be reported to potential landlords by U.D. Registry, a Van Nuys company that sells information on renters.

But Fields told attorneys in the case Friday that further legal research into the 1982 California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act had raised questions about the Legislature’s intent in enacting the law.

The statute bars the reporting of eviction cases in which the tenant prevails.

But Fields told attorneys that he wanted them to present oral arguments June 22 on whether cases that do not go to trial can be reported by information services such as U.D. Registry.

Filed Lawsuit

David S. Pallack, an attorney with San Fernando Valley Neighborhood Legal Services in Pacoima, and several other public interest attorneys filed a lawsuit against U.D. Registry in 1987 on behalf of nine Los Angeles County renters.

They claimed that they had been denied housing because of information released about eviction cases they had won.

Pallack said Fields partly rescinded his order after reading a staff analysis of the consumer credit legislation that was submitted to the state Senate Judiciary Committee.

The analysis said eviction cases “that are not brought to trial” can be reported by consumer credit information companies.

Pallack said he did not consider that analysis to be authoritative.

“I’m confident that when he views that report in the proper light, the judge will come to the . . . conclusion” that he came to May 30.

Fields’ ruling, which preceded a trial seeking financial damages on behalf of the nine plaintiffs, favored Pallack’s position.

Harvey Saltz, owner of the Van Nuys landlord information service, said that before making his original ruling, Fields overlooked a copy of the staff analysis Saltz had submitted.

He said the analysis clearly states that cases that do not go to trial can still be reported by firms such as his.

Regardless of how Fields ultimately rules, Saltz said, he expects that the case will be appealed.

“We have been operating within the law, and always had been, and I would be shocked if somebody now interpreted the law to mean that we had not been,” Saltz said.