About a year and a half ago the management of our mobile home park in Gardena, CA, distributed a form for tenants to fill out, pretty much a “yellow dog” contract, if you ask me: That a new rule be approved to force eviction of a tenant if another tenant makes X number of complaints against the first tenant. (We ourselves did not approve it and I don’t know who else did.) I have yet to see an instance of this, and only lately have even heard anyone talk about it, and I haven’t been able to ask the pro bono attorneys at our courthouse because of the holiday season, but I think the management is trying to make an end run around state law with this. Any comments, please?
It sounds to me like whoever owns the trailer park would do the evicting, based on the number of complaints from other tenants. So I don’t see how it’s any different from the owner evicting a person based on any other criteria. Perhaps I’m missing some important details though.
There is a considerable difference. I hope it’s not written so terribly, but it potentially gives any tennant the right to evict any other tennant. There’s a good chance something like that is unconstitutional, but the only way to find out is to try it in court. Hopefully, there would be some provision at least requiring creditable substantiating evidence about complaints.
Remind them that in the US you have the right to confront your accuser. The only time you don’t is when you might be part to a criminal action or so said the cops here when I asked them who complained about me.
How could it possibly be unconstitutional? Generally, the owner of a property has the right to evict a person based on the terms set out in a lease contract. I don’t see anything in the OP that would indicate that the other tenants have a right to evict a person, only that the owner of the trailer park has the right to do so based on complaints from other tenants.
Hopefully. If not, one would be quite the dolt for agreeing to such an agreement. 
The sixth amendment guarantees someone the right to confront his accuser in a criminal trial. AFAIK it has no effect on a private agreement based on contract, unless such a right is granted in the contract. (In which case, it will usually be some form of private arbitration service.)
The occupant of a mobile home can be one of three different legal classifications:
[list][li]The owner of the mobile home and of the land on which it sits – normally not the case in a mobile home park.[/li]
In this case, he would have to “maintain an attractive nuisance” in the legal sense in order to be a person against whom his neighbors could bring a legal action. And courts are very loath to enforce any sort of eviction-style procedures against bona fide fee simple property owners, regardless of the law.
[li] The owner of the mobile home, who rents from the park owner the land on which it sits.[/li]
As such, eviction proceedings may lie against him for actions prohibited by the lease for the land.
[li] The renter of the mobile home, either from the owner of the mobile home park or from a third party, and likewise the renter of the land on which it sits.[/li]
His situation differs in no way from any other tenant in this case.
Except, (IANAL) an eviction is a civil (governmental) procedure, and depending on the Rules of Civil Procedure in your state, the defendant in an eviction proceeding may be entitled to the identity of the complainant.
Source: My HOA’s CC&Rs state that all complaints must be signed and include the complainant’s name and address, because the homeowner being complained about is entitled to the identity of the complainer (particularly when fines are levied causing a lein on a property) because of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure.
Google searching seems to confirm this, but legalese gives me a headache and I’m out of asprin.
AmbushBug
It had been my understanding that the objection tenants would have, is that it gives Tenant A the leverage to get Tenant B evicted without proper cause. Tenant A may just bear a grudge against Tenant B and might present a questionable complaint to management. We have an example of that where I live: One of our next-door neighbors, a “Tenant A” in this sense, is something of a “toady” for a park manager–I often see the electric cart driven by this manager, who also does park maintenance, parked in our next-door neighbor’s parking space. We have another neighbor nearby, on the other side, a “Tenant B,” who is something of an adversary of park management and is in fact involved with GSMOL. My objection to the proposed rule is that it seems to give this Tenant A a way to get Tenant B in trouble, just because of the unspoken enmity that seems to exist between the management and Tenant B.
Not true. All that is required is evidence to prove guilt. That is a fallacy that many believe of the US legal system.