context: We further note that when a penalty scheme set forth in a state statute is not susceptible to a narrowing construction, the California Supreme Court has considered whether the imposition of mandatory, ever-mounting penalties violates the due process clause of the state and federal constitutions in a particular case. The California Supreme Court has indicated that trial courts must make this constitutional assessment on a case-by-case basis.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.parenthetical: conducting an "as applied" analysis to decide whether a statute authorizing a $1,000 per day penalty for violations of the Housing Code violated due process, and concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a $663,000 penalty because it was not "im-permissibly disproportionate 'to the conduct' or to the defendants' 'net worth' "
citation_a.sentence: See Kinney v. Vaccari, 27 Cal.3d 348, 353, 356, 165 Cal.Rptr. 787, 612 P.2d 877 (1980) (upholding a $36,000 penalty under section 789.3 of the California Civil Code because it was “proportioned to the landlord’s misconduct and necessary to achieve the penalty’s deterrent purposes”); see also City and County of San Francisco v. Sainez, 77 Cal.App.4th 1302, 1312-16, 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 418 (2000) (conducting an “as applied” analysis to decide whether a statute authorizing a $1,000 per day penalty for violations of the Housing Code violated due process, and concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a $663,000 penalty because it was not “im-permissibly disproportionate ‘to the conduct’ or to the defendants’ ‘net worth’ ”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.parenthetical: upholding a $36,000 penalty under section 789.3 of the California Civil Code because it was "proportioned to the landlord's misconduct and necessary to achieve the penalty's deterrent purposes"
citation_b.sentence: See Kinney v. Vaccari, 27 Cal.3d 348, 353, 356, 165 Cal.Rptr. 787, 612 P.2d 877 (1980) (upholding a $36,000 penalty under section 789.3 of the California Civil Code because it was “proportioned to the landlord’s misconduct and necessary to achieve the penalty’s deterrent purposes”); see also City and County of San Francisco v. Sainez, 77 Cal.App.4th 1302, 1312-16, 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 418 (2000) (conducting an “as applied” analysis to decide whether a statute authorizing a $1,000 per day penalty for violations of the Housing Code violated due process, and concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a $663,000 penalty because it was not “im-permissibly disproportionate ‘to the conduct’ or to the defendants’ ‘net worth’ ”).