Can California landlords protect against tenants paying retainer instead of rent?
<p>I've heard that in San Francisco, with a landlord that's not on top of his things, and a tenant who doesn't care about his credit report, it would be cheaper to withhold rent and pay a retainer instead of paying rent, and such a tenant will not be evicted if they select doing a jury trial.</p>

<p>Is there a way for a landlord in California to protect against such situation?</p>

<p>Your question is not particularly clear, but it sounds like you're describing a situation where:</p>

<ul>
<li>The tenant doesn't pay the rent</li>
<li>The landlord files an action to evict the tenant, and</li>
<li>The tenant files a request for a jury trial.</li>
</ul>

<p>The act of filing for a jury trial doesn't guarantee that the tenant won't be evicted, but it will likely make the eviction process more time-consuming and expensive for the landlord.</p>

<p>I'm assuming the tenant is entitled to a jury trial--otherwise this would be useless as a stalling tactic. In that case, the question you really want answered is, can the landlord force the tenant to waive any right to a jury trial by contract, for example in the lease?</p>

<p>In California, <a href="http://www.gilchristrutter.com/CM/Articles/Predispute%20Jury%20Trial%20Waivers.pdf" rel="nofollow">the answer is no</a>. The linked document suggests that you may be able to specify some form of ADR, which would avoid the expense of a jury trial, but the California courts won't let you get away with a straight jury trial waiver.</p>

united-states california residential-lease real-estate