Judge Voids Section of Tenant-Screening Law : Housing: State regulation was designed to keep landlords from blacklisting renters who had won eviction cases.

A Superior Court judge on Thursday declared unconstitutional a state law passed in 1992 that restricts what tenant-screening services can tell landlords about the eviction records of prospective tenants.

David Pallack, an attorney for San Fernando Valley Neighborhood Legal Services, who first challenged the tenant screening practice in April, 1987, said he will file an appeal within 10 days.

Judge Harvey Schneider affirmed an April 8 ruling against a state law which prohibited companies from disclosing information about eviction court cases that were dismissed or decided in the prospective tenants’ favor. The information services were allowed under the law to report only the eviction proceedings that prospective tenants actually lost.

Pallack maintained that reporting the other legal actions allowed landlords to “blacklist” tenants who had not been found guilty of anything in court.

The judge, however, described the law as “too over-broad,” ruling that it infringed on the free speech rights of tenant-screening services, such as U.D. Registry, a Van Nuys company that challenged the law. He also dismissed Pallack’s arguments that the information provided by companies falls in the category of commercial speech, which does not enjoy the same broad Constitutional protections as other types of speech.

His ruling blocks the state attorney general’s office from attempting to enforce the law.

At a 10-minute hearing, Schneider told attorneys for both sides to “take it with my blessings to the Court of Appeal.”

It is unclear how the ruling will affect the law outside of Los Angeles County, said Pallack, who challenged the law on behalf of nine tenants in April, 1987.

“I don’t think any other jurisdiction is bound by this ruling,” Pallack said. “People outside L.A. County are unaffected by this.”

Stephen L. Jones, an attorney for the Apartment Owners Assn. of Greater Los Angeles, said the decision will halt further lawsuits until the appeals court rules.

“From our point of view, it is always better to go into a Court of Appeal with a judge agreeing with you,” he said of Schneider’s decision.

Jones and Sumner Cotton, who represents U.D. Registry, which also filed suit against the state and the state attorney general’s office, argue that dismissed eviction cases are relevant to a prospect’s record, because often they represent a case that the landlord dropped after the tenant gave up the legal fight and moved out.

Cotton denied that the services engage in commercial speech. “Commercial speech must propose a transaction,” Cotton said. “The fact that A tells B that Jones was a defendant in an unlawful detainer (eviction) proceeding doesn’t propose anything.

“If it were otherwise, a lawyer giving advice to a client could be regulated by the state,” he added.

Assemblyman Terry Friedman (D-Los Angeles) who sponsored the legislation, expressed concern over the court decision.

“I’m disappointed and I believe it’s incorrect,” Friedman said. “I’m an absolutist to protect free speech, but that should not protect the knowing fraudulent misuses of information for profit,” he added.

Friedman earlier charged that the U.D. Registry was skirting the law by providing information to clients that recommended rejection of applicants, without disclosing the court actions the recommendation was based on.