I live in an apartment in Los Angeles, which is one of the
rent-controlled cities in California.  The landlord of the 8-unit
building talked to me about a plan that he would start a legal process
to evict me soon.  The reason is that he wants to install a resident
manger to live in my current unit.  He also offered some monetary
compensation which is significantly more than the relocation
assistance legally required by law, $3,200.

The law says:
http://www.lacity.org/lahd/
in a pdf file
(TWELVE LEGAL REASONS FOR EVICTIONS IN THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES)

RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE SECTION 151.09 - EVICTIONS

A landlord may bring an action to recover possession of a rental unit
only upon one of the following grounds:
 ......
 ......
8. The landlord seeks in good faith to recover possession of the
rental unit for use and occupancy by:
a) the landlord, or the landlord's spouse, children, or parents,
provided the landlord is a natural person and not a corporation or
partnership; or
b) for a resident manager, provided that: no alternative vacant unit
is available for occupancy by a resident manager; except that where a
building has an existing resident manager in order to replace her/him
with a new manager.
[End of citation: 151.09 - EVICTIONS]

**********

My questions are specifically about the "alternative vacant unit" in the above.  
1) I recently found that a two-bedroom unit in our building is going
to be available soon.  Is this unit considered an "alternative vacant
unit" as in the context of the law as compared with my three-bedroom
unit?

2) The building has only one similar three-bedroom unit as mine.  The
others are all two-bedroom unit.  The landlord says he chose my
three-bedroom unit rather than the other in our two-storied building
because my unit is downstairs.  Incidentally, I live in this current
apartment for 20 years, the people in the other three-bedroom unit,
upstairs, started living a few month ago.

This is about the total picture of my situation.  Actual legal process
has not started yet.

Thank you for your kind answer.

It looks as though your landlord has thought this through, as
suggested by his offer of $3,200 being more than the compulsory legal
minimum.

Maybe it's just a ploy to squeeze a higher rent out of you.

What rent are you paying now and what is he getting for similar
apartments in the same block?

Are you talking this through with him or not?

Dear probonopublico-ga

Thank you for the prompt comment.

The way I wrote might have been confusing.  Legal minimum IS the
$3,200 in Los Angeles as I understand it.  He is offering
significantly more than this amount for the relocation assistance.

About the exact rent, I might specify if it became relevant.  What I
can say now is that the rents for comparable units in my neighborhood
are significantly higher.

I will have to talk to the landlord again very soon, but I have not. 
Before doing that, I would like to know whether I would have a good
chance to win in a possible law suit.  Hence, my question at this
google site.

From gwise-ga
Original questioner

Hi, Gwise

Yes you do have a chance of winning a lawsuit, as does the other party BUT ...

The Golden Rule is that it's only the lawyers who always win.

Going to law is generally not a good idea ...

So many people I know who have been through the process say 'Never
Again' regardless of the result Win, Lose or Draw.

Of course, if you go to a lawyer he might build up your hopes with the
idea of building up his fees.

I would recommend that whatever the apparent strength of your case ... DON'T!

Problems can usually be settled more advantageously on a friendly one-to-one basis.

From what you say, your rent is now attractively low compared with the
going market rate ... which is the cause of the problem.

I would suggest that it is time for a re-think ...

Property prices have gone silly over the last few years and inevitably
these will eventually reflect on the occupiers.

Hope this helps ...

All the Best

Bryan