The Brief

Thousands of homes have been lost in the Los Angeles fires. More have been damaged or coated in soot and ash.

Many of those who lost homes — temporarily, or permanently — are renters. What comes next for those tenant households has generated a lot of confusion. Other L.A. renters outside the burn areas are also worried about new rent increases or pressure to move out.

“We were already in a shortage of units, and now that shortage has just gotten even greater,” said Matthew Calcanas, an attorney with the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles. “There's a lot of tenants who are concerned.”

LAist reporters spoke with housing rights experts to produce this guide for tenants and landlords about the legal protections, responsibilities and next steps involved in recovering from the fires.

We are not lawyers, and this guide will inevitably miss some of the specific problems you may be encountering. If you need further help, tenant rights experts recommend you reach out to StayHousedLA.org, a publicly funded coalition of local legal aid organizations.

Rent and deposits

If I paid January rent, will I get it back? 

This will depend on the extent of the damage to your unit.

If your home was destroyed, California law says your lease is canceled. Your landlord can keep the portion of rent you paid for the days you were able to live in your unit. But the landlord must give back the rest of this month’s payment. The same applies if your unit was damaged to the point of uninhabitability, and you choose to terminate your lease rather than wait for repairs.

However, if your home suffered minor damage, you still owe rent. The L.A. County Department of Consumer and Business Affairs says you should push your landlord to make necessary repairs. But as long as the unit is livable, your obligation to pay rent stands.

Will I get back my security deposit? 

If your rental unit was destroyed in the fires, the rental contract is no longer valid and your landlord must give back your deposit.

“ Within 21 days of a tenant moving out, the landlord has to get the security deposit back to you,” said Abid Aziz, a tenants' rights attorney with the Aziz Yellin law firm. A landlord cannot reduce your deposit if the unit was destroyed, he added.

Aziz said if the landlord refuses to give back your deposit, you can sue them in small claims court.

Damage and relocation costs

Can I get help with relocation costs? 

This depends on many factors, such as your insurance coverage, your eligibility for federal aid, and any potential obligations your landlord may have.

If you have renters insurance, check your policy for what’s covered under loss of use and additional living expenses. Then file a claim to get what you're owed.

If you don’t have renters insurance, you can apply for federal aid through FEMA.

If neither of those options work, it's possible that your landlord may be required to cover your relocation expenses, but only in certain circumstances.

If your unit was completely destroyed, your landlord does not need to pay relocation assistance, according to the county Department of Consumer and Business Affairs.

If your unit was damaged, but able to be occupied after necessary repairs, your landlord may be on the hook for your temporary relocation costs.

Part of this depends on where you live. The city of L.A.’s rent control program exempts landlords from the obligation to pay relocation assistance in the event of a natural disaster.

Alisa Randel, an attorney with Public Counsel who works on housing issues, said it’s possible that in other areas, such as Pasadena and Altadena, landlords of certain properties may be legally obligated to cover a tenant’s relocation expenses while repairs are carried out.

“It's complicated,” Randell said. “All of these jurisdictions have similar, but different wording in important ways.”

Whatever situation you fall into, tenant attorneys say you should be keeping receipts for any temporary lodging and other additional expenses you incur as a result of being displaced.

What about damage?

If my home was damaged, who is responsible for repairs?  

Your landlord owns the property and is responsible for fixing damage to that property.

If your possessions — like your furniture, clothing, artwork or other personal items — were damaged, you’ll have to deal with those losses yourself. But damage to the building, and any issues from the fires that affect the home’s habitability, are up to the landlord to fix.

“Landlords are required to maintain their rental properties in habitable conditions,” said Amy Tannenbaum, an attorney with Public Counsel. “One of the requirements of the law is that the building grounds have to be kept clean, sanitary, free from accumulations of debris, filth, etc. We read that to cover things like ash and soot.”

If your landlord is telling you they don’t want to file a claim with their insurance company to fix smoke damage in your unit or clean up common areas full of soot — maybe because they’re afraid of their policy getting dropped in the future — that does not absolve them of their responsibility to maintain a clean, livable home in exchange for your rent.

“Insurance or pay out of pocket, that's on them,” Randell said. “That's a you problem for the landlord.”

Evictions

Are eviction cases on hold because of the wildfires?

No. The L.A. City Council has delayed voting on a proposed eviction moratorium connected to the fires. That proposal now faces an uncertain future at City Hall.

For now, if a landlord files an eviction lawsuit against you, including for unpaid rent during the wildfires, and you fail to respond to the filing or show up for hearings, your landlord could win the eviction by default.

“If there is an eviction case that a tenant is currently part of, they still do need to go to court,” Kaimi Wenger, an attorney with the Inner City Law Center, said. “If a tenant has been subject to an evacuation order, they could petition the court for a continuance.”

Tenant advocates say an online resource called the Tenant Power Toolkit can help you draft a response to any eviction filed against you.

Can I be evicted if I let new people and pets into my home?

Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order Friday to temporarily prohibit L.A. County landlords from filing evictions against renters who take in new roommates who were displaced by the fires, even if their leases would normally ban those additional occupants. Newsom’s order will remain in effect until March 8, 2025. 

 The L.A. City Council also voted this week to draft a new ordinance that would enact new protections against eviction for renters who take in unauthorized roommates and pets who were displaced by the fires.

 Even with those protections, Wenger said, some landlords could try to serve you with a notice, which is why it’s critical to know your rights.

“ There are definitely unscrupulous landlords who have dollar signs in their eyes and who are thinking, 'If I can evict my existing tenant for any particular reason that I can find, then I can jack up the rent and rent to one of these new displaced people for a larger amount of money,'” Wenger said.

Can my landlord evict me to rent to someone willing to pay more? 

No, they cannot. Under various state and local tenant protections, landlords need “just cause” to evict you, Aziz said.

“ They can't just evict you just because somebody's willing to pay more,” he said. “That's not a just cause.”

Landlords can always begin eviction proceedings against you if you do not pay rent, violate your lease agreement or use the unit for illegal activity.

Can my landlord evict me to bring in someone displaced by the fires? 

This is one possibility that tenant rights attorneys are anticipating. Landlords generally have the ability to evict existing tenants when they intend to move into a unit themselves, or to move in a relative. If the landlord, or one of their family members, was displaced by the fires and now wants to occupy your unit, this does generally constitute a “just cause” for eviction.

However, your landlord most likely cannot demand that you leave immediately. Local tenant protection laws, and the state’s Tenant Protection Act, provide timelines for owner move-ins. Under the state law, tenants who have lived in their units for at least one year must be given at least 60 days’ notice of any owner move-in.

In this situation, your landlord will also likely owe you some amount of relocation assistance. Under the state law, you’re entitled to one month’s rent. Under local rent control laws, that amount can be much higher — as high as $25,700 in the city of L.A.

Be sure to get the name of the person your landlord plans to give your unit. If the landlord or their relative doesn’t move into your unit within 90 days of you leaving, and stay there for at least one year, the eviction is illegal under the state law and you are entitled to return at your previous rent.

Rental rates and rights

Can my landlord raise my rent because of the fires?

The short answer is no — your landlord cannot massively jack up your rent because of the fires. Under Gov. Gavin Newsom’s emergency declaration, any rent increase of more than 10% from pre-disaster levels constitutes illegal price gouging.

However, your landlord can still raise your rent by smaller amounts, as they normally would be allowed to do in any given year — at least for now (more on that below).

How much your landlord can raise your rent depends on whether you’re covered by local rent control, a state tenant protection law or other legal limits. Read LAist’s guide to local rent hikes to find out what rules apply in your home.

The L.A. City Council recently delayed voting on a proposal to freeze rent increases for the next year because of the impacts of the fires. It is possible, but by no means guaranteed, that in the near future, state or local lawmakers could pass further restrictions on rent increases.

What are my rights as I look for new housing? 

There’s no way to sugar coat this: Your search for new housing will likely be difficult.

Landlords are allowed to ask for market rate rents on vacant units under the state’s Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act. If you haven’t had to search for a new rental home in a long time, those market rates may appear shockingly high.

Then there’s the issue of rampant spikes in asking rents — well above typical market rates — despite the ban on price gouging that was triggered by Newsom’s declaration of a state of emergency around the Palisades Fire.

To be clear, it is illegal for landlords to be demanding double-digit increases from the rents they were asking before the fires. Under the governor’s emergency declaration, any price increase of more than 10% compared to pre-disaster prices is illegal price gouging.

Tenant rights advocates have been collecting hundreds of examples of listings with massive post-fire jumps in asking rent.

The state attorney general says he is preparing cases against landlords who are allegedly breaking the law. If you see instances of suspected rent gouging in your search for a new home, read this LAist story to learn how to report it to prosecutors.

Housing vouchers and rent control

What if I’ve been using a housing voucher? 

Programs like the federal Housing Choice Voucher program (also known as Section 8) help low-income tenants cover the cost of housing they otherwise could not afford. If you’re a voucher holder and your rental home just burned down, the good news is that you should be able to use that voucher to pay for another unit elsewhere.

“They're what we call portable,” said Tannenbaum, the Public Counsel attorney. “You can take them to different landlords.”

However, finding a landlord who will take your voucher could be a drawn-out process. Because many landlords are hesitant to rent to voucher holders, tenants can search for months without success.

But you should know that discrimination against voucher holders is illegal in California. If landlords ever turn you away because of your voucher, or tell you they do not take Section 8, tenant rights advocates say you can file a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department.

What if my home was rent controlled? 

Under various local rent control ordinances, specific protections against evictions and large rent increases apply to the unit — not to the tenant.

“Unfortunately, yes, if that unit is lost then you're also losing those protections that you had in that particular residence,” said Calcanas, the attorney from Legal Aid Foundation of L.A..

Housing policy experts in L.A. say tenants who lived in their units for many years, paying below market rates, are likely to struggle paying for the going rents in other units today.

“They may be looking at a possibly over $1,000 difference in the amount they're paying in rent now versus the amount they'll need to pay in the future,” Calcanas said.

California lawmakers passed legislation in 2017 agreeing to cover up to $270 million of losses related to the Olympic Games after L.A. covers the first $270 million should a deficit occur. That legislation directed the governor to execute a contract solidifying the state's commitment.

But more than eight years later, that contract hasn't been inked by the governor's office.

The state's guarantee is of potentially huge importance to the city of Los Angeles, which took on a huge risk when it agreed to be the financial backstop for the Olympics in order to secure the host city bid. L.A.'s financial exposure is essentially unlimited. If LA28, the private nonprofit running the games, winds up with a deficit exceeding $540 million, the city is responsible for the rest.

When asked about the contract, the governor's office directed LAist to the California Department of Finance. Spokesperson H.D. Palmer said that the state is currently in talks with LA28 and the city of L.A. about contract language, but asserted there are no “sticking points.” He said only that working out contract language takes time.

LAist asked LA28 for more details on what's being discussed and when the contract would be finished.

"We engage regularly with our state partners on various Games planning items and look forward to continuing our strong partnership with the state and the city in the lead up to 2028 as we work to execute a fiscally responsible Games," Jacie Prieto Lopez, vice president of communication and public affairs at LA28, said in a statement.

Ilanna Morales, a spokesperson for L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, told LAist in a text message that the city was "confident that an agreement will be reached and that the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games will be a financial success."

The lack of a signed state contract could trigger alarm bells in city government, where some officials are already upset that another key contract remains unsigned. That is an agreement between Los Angeles and LA28 over compensating the city for extra services it will provide for the Olympics, such as police overtime. That contract was scheduled to be signed more than six months ago.

City officials say if that contract isn't airtight, it could leave L.A. with millions in unexpected costs. Referring to that unsigned contract, Councilmember Monica Rodriguez warned CEO Reynold Hoover in a public letter last week that the coming Olympics could "bankrupt" the city.

The latest clash between California and President Donald Trump over abortion and gender-affirming care could soon leave doctors caught between state and federal law.

Under a bill that may soon pass the Legislature, California medical providers and affiliated businesses could face hefty state fines if they comply with a federal subpoena seeking abortion, gender-affirming or reproductive care information without first notifying the California attorney general, patients and providers.

But delaying responding to the feds could put them at risk of violating federal law, and independent constitutional scholars say the pending law might not survive a legal challenge.

The bill is in response to efforts the Trump administration and conservative states have undertaken to block or criminalize abortion services and care for transgender people.

Under Assembly Bill 1930, any medical provider or business served with any civil, criminal or regulatory inquiry, investigation, subpoena or summons seeking “legally protected health care activity” “shall not comply” unless the provider notifies the state attorney general as well as others involved in the care.

The measure’s author, Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur of Los Angeles, said the impetus for the bill, in part, was a federal subpoena from the Trump administration to Children’s Hospital Los Angeles seeking medical records for youth transgender patients.

“No one should have to fear that seeking lawful medical care in the state of California could put their privacy and their safety at risk,” he told the Assembly Judiciary Committee at a hearing last week.

Lawmakers spent just 17 minutes discussing AB 1930 at its first legislative hearing last week, despite the legal complexities and consequences for California’s patients, doctors, hospitals, insurers, tech companies and others. It passed on a party-line vote, according to the CalMatters Digital Democracy database. It now moves to the Assembly Public Safety Committee where it’s scheduled to be discussed on Tuesday

The Los Angeles hospital was one of 20 medical providers that offered gender-affirming care for minors that received federal subpoenas seeking patients’ medical records. At the time, the U.S. Justice Department said the subpoenas were part of an investigation into “health care fraud” and “false statements.” Some of the families sued to fight the subpoenas. In January, the feds backed off and didn’t receive the records.

Rady Children’s Hospital, which operates facilities in San Diego, Orange and Imperial counties, told CalMatters earlier this year that the U.S. Health and Human Services inspector general was investigating the hospital. The investigation preceded Rady’s decision to halt most gender-affirming services for minors, a decision that is now tied up in multiple court cases.

The measure says that in order for a business or provider to release records, the entity making the legal demand must include an affidavit declaring that the investigation is not related to punishing providers for performing abortions, transgender care or other services protected under California law or that the investigation involves a possible California crime or is an inquiry into “professional discipline.”

The recipient would be required to inform the attorney general’s office within seven days of receiving the legal demand. The attorney general would have an additional 30 days to review the matter before the recipient could comply with the order.

The measure, which is co-sponsored by Attorney General Rob Bonta, would also mandate that the provider notify patients and providers whose records are being sought. Those who break the rules would face civil penalties of up to $15,000 per violation.

Democrats move to protect abortion

California lawmakers have, in recent years, enacted more than a dozen laws designed to shield medical professionals from conservative states and the federal government on abortion and transgender health care.

Democrats passed the laws after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and other states began banning or criminalizing abortion. Thirteen states ban abortion and some, most notably Texas, penalize anyone who helps another person get an abortion.

Legislative efforts to protect clinicians and patient medical records have expanded as the Trump administration has increasingly politicized other services like gender-affirming care for minors.

California laws prohibit state law enforcement from extraditing medical professionals who may have violated another state’s laws on abortion or gender-affirming care. They also prohibit medical facilities from sharing patient information about those services with out-of-state law enforcement.

LGBTQ+ civil rights group Equality California is the latest bill’s other co-sponsor. Zbur was its executive director before being elected to the Legislature.

Equality California’s legislative director, Craig Pulsipher, told the Judiciary Committee the measure builds “on California’s existing protections to ensure that patients can access health care without fear that their personal information will be weaponized against them.”

Various groups that oppose gender-affirming care are against the measure, as is the California Chamber of Commerce.

In a letter to lawmakers, representatives for the state’s influential business lobby said CalChamber’s members appreciate lawmakers wanting to “help defend businesses facing subpoenas,” and they don’t oppose the bill out of “support for misuse of subpoena powers.”

“However, we are concerned that AB 1930 will compel businesses to violate federal law in order to comply with state law,” they wrote.

Layla Jane, a “detransitioner” who sued her health care provider over the gender-reassignment surgery she received as a teen, said the bill would protect doctors from investigations into negligent care and make it harder for patients like her to subpoena for medical records.

“This bill shields providers so they can keep chopping up bodies,” she told the committee. “It wraps the doctors, the clinics, the gender industry in a legal blanket and says, ‘You are protected from accountability no matter who you harmed.’ There is no blanket for me.”

Would the bill survive a legal challenge? 

Bill Essayli, a former Republican state lawmaker who oversees the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles, said in a statement that Zbur’s measure would be unconstitutional.

“Any effort by California to restrict the federal government’s lawful use of, or compliance with, subpoenas is unlawful and unenforceable under the Supremacy Clause,” Essayli said.

Three independent constitutional scholars who CalMatters asked to review the bill suggested Essayli may have a point.

Under that provision of the U.S. Constitution, states cannot pass laws that run counter to the federal government’s legal authority.

“If there’s a conflict between federal law on the one hand, and state or local (law) on the other, federal law wins out,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of UC Berkeley School of Law.

Chemerinsky and the other scholars said the measure is unlikely to run into the same legal problems that caused a federal judge to block California’s attempt to ban federal agents from wearing masks. The judge in the mask case ruled that the state had discriminated against the federal government since it exempted state police from the ban.

This proposed measure doesn’t single out the federal government; the bill applies to any entity issuing subpoenas.

Still, the scholars said forcing private health care providers and businesses not to respond to a subpoena on a federal deadline could be legally problematic.

“It looks like the federal government could say you’re impeding their law enforcement,” said Leslie Gielow Jacobs, a law professor at University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law.

“Is this impeding federal ... objectives?” said Vikram David Amar, a law professor at the UC Davis School of Law. “If so, it would be invalid under Supremacy.”

The California Attorney General’s Office responded to an interview request for Bonta with an unsigned written statement.

“Bills aren’t final when they’re introduced and can change throughout the legislative process,” it read. “Our office will continue to have conversations with stakeholders regarding AB 1930 and will address concerns as appropriate and needed.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

Despite a seemingly unimpeachable goal — ensuring adequate child support to keep kids out of poverty — a bill making its way through the state Assembly has left legislators and advocates divided.

The measure, from Elk Grove Democratic Assemblymember Stephanie Nguyen, would compel separated families to enroll in a state program empowered to garnish wages for child support.

Currently, custodial parents must “opt in” to enroll in the California Department of Child Support Services. They often do not take that step, sometimes because they have made their own arrangements.

Under Nguyen’s bill, families would have to opt out of the program. She said the goal of the bill is to ensure that children get the money they need.

“It’s the child that suffers. If you’re a single-income parent…and struggling to make ends meet, then the extra piece of income comes in. I think it reduces child poverty,” said Nguyen.

The measure addresses what groups close to the child support system say is a pressing issue: When parents split up, child support arrangements can fall to the wayside. That leaves the problem to the court system and puts children at risk for poverty.

At a March hearing, the bill had support from the California Child Support Association and the Department of Child Support Services from Sacramento, Solano and San Joaquin Counties.

“Right now, just in Sacramento County, my department is sending $11 million every month home to families putting food on the table and shoes on children's feet. It's an incredible anti-poverty program,” Dallin Frederickson, the director of Sacramento County’s Department of Child Support Services, told lawmakers at a March hearing, according to the CalMatters Digital Democracy database.

“Unfortunately, the child support program in California is underutilized,” he said.

But critics say that entering all families into the child support services system could actually undermine the stability of separated families by disrupting the bonds that remain, as when parents have come to their own financial agreements.

Even a Democratic lawmaker who voted for the bill at the hearing raised questions about how it could affect families who make their own child support arrangements.

“I've seen what happens when families get separated and crumble and fall to pieces,” Assemblyman Isaac Bryan, a Los Angeles Democrat, said at the hearing. “And I'm just concerned that any ways that we further deteriorate a strong relationship between parents, we're harming the best interests of the child.”

A first-in-the-nation proposal

Among California’s 2 million children in single-parent households, 1 in 4 live in poverty. That rate is four times higher than among children living with married parents. Women head 80% of single-parent households, which are more likely to live in poverty than single-father households.

Statewide, there are slightly more than 1 million court orders for child support payments, with total payments owed reaching $2.6 billion in 2024.

If Nguyen’s Assembly Bill 1643 passes, it’s unclear how many additional families would be enrolled into the state collection program, but it could be thousands, based upon the annual number of court orders.

“There’s a bit of unknown. This could be a really fundamental change in a big state. (So), should they do a pilot study in one county?,” said Rebecca Miller, senior attorney for Western Center for Law and Poverty.

Custodial parents of any income level can choose to enroll into child support services, however, enrollment is mandatory for parents who receive public assistance under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act of 1975.

No state currently mandates child support services enrollment for families not receiving public assistance, as stipulated in Nguyen’s bill.

“It could violate federal law because it forces people into the system,” said Rebecca Gonzalez, policy advocate for Western Center for Law and Poverty.

Another concern is cost to taxpayers, though Nguyen said that the bill won’t add costs.

However, because it requires that all child support payments go through the State Disbursement Unit, the measure could increase administrative costs for local agencies, triggering state-mandated reimbursement costs, according to a legislative committee analysis.

“I don’t see why they think it’s cost-free,” said Gonzalez.

The mechanics of California child support

Child support payments decrease poverty for children living with their primary caregiver, but the payments alone are not enough to eliminate poverty, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. In addition, making payments may worsen poverty for fathers living separately, especially if they’re already low-income.

Child support payments also have proven to offer other benefits, including more involvement of the paying parent with their children, better academic outcomes and wellbeing for the kids and improved parent-to-parent relationships.

The system Nugyen’s bill would default California families into, from the Department of Child Support Services, already collects and distributes almost two thirds of child support owed in the state, as of 2024. When needed, the department also locates parents and establishes paternity. It collects money using payroll deductions and, if necessary, by garnishing wages, intercepting tax refunds or suspending drivers’ licenses to compel compliance.

The public system for child support payments isn’t straightforward, especially if the parents’ split is acrimonious. That’s when the courts — actually two courts — can step in.

Attorney Miller said Family Court is the system most people think of for handling divorce, child custody and support payments.

Separately, the Title IV-D court is the federally required child support system designed in the 1970s primarily to manage payments for families receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or welfare. Nearly half of custodial parents enrolled in child support services receive TANF. California Work Opportunity and Responsibility for Kids, better known as CalWORKS, is our state’s TANF program.

In California, when parents separate, Family Courts order child support payments based on both parents’ incomes and the amount of time each spends with the kids. Then the custodial parent can choose to complete “opt in” paperwork for the payments to go through child support services.

Many parents choose not to enroll for a multitude of reasons, for example if they have

an agreement with their former spouse, or if they believe the non-custodial parent can’t afford payments. Some parents don’t want to interact with the other parent because it’s unpleasant or dangerous. Some domestic violence survivors fear that reporting their former partners to child support services would expose them or their kids to harm.

“We think parents should be trusted to make the decision of what’s best for their family and not forced into the system…the system doesn’t work for everyone,” said Gonzales.

Nguyen said she’s working with the opponents to resolve their differences.

“This is really just about making sure the money gets to the parents who have custody of the kids and making sure they are fed, and they are properly cared for,” said Nguyen.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

On a recent Wednesday evening in March, the auditorium at Roosevelt High School buzzed with old-school Japanese anime anthems.

Songs like Hironobu Kageyama’s “Cha-La Head-Cha-La,” the theme from “Dragon Ball Z,” and selections from Hayao Miyazaki’s cult classic “My Neighbor Totoro” echoed throughout the performing arts center.

The concert was an intentional tribute to a community once central to Boyle Heights, as students used music to honor a history largely erased during World War II, when more than  400 Japanese American students were forcibly removed and incarcerated in camps. 

Guiding the 77-piece ensemble was band director Pedro Ramos, who took over the program last fall and, in collaboration with the school’s Japanese teacher and club, built the concert around themes of culture and solidarity.

“Roosevelt was hit hard during Japanese Internment and continues to be attacked with ongoing ICE raids,” said Ramos, 24. “The purpose of this concert is to bring solidarity and highlight the perpetuity and appreciation of each other’s culture in turbulent times.”

That vision came through in a program that blended cultures and histories. One piece, “Gelato Con Caffé” by Toshio Mashima, fused rock with samba, reflecting both Japanese and Latin influences. The concert also featured a video of students speaking on what Japanese culture means to them.

Band director Pedro Ramos leads his student ensemble on stage on March 25, 2026.

(

Jesse Reynoso

/

Boyle Heights Beat

)

“We’re a community now, but there was a Japanese community here once before us,” said Frankie Danielle Trujillo, a senior who plays the alto saxophone. “These pieces honor them and show our appreciation of both communities.”

The performance drew students from across campus, including members of Roosevelt’s Japanese Club.

Junior Eric Samaniego, 17, joined the club as a freshman and said it gave him a sense of belonging.

“Middle school was miserable … This was a very refreshing start,” he said, standing next to his mother, who wore a pink cherry blossom T-shirt designed by students and sold to raise funds for the club’s cultural activities.

The club, supported by Japanese teacher Yoriko Hongo, offers a space for students to connect and celebrate their passion for Japanese culture.

“What’s special is that many of our members are not enrolled in Japanese classes and find a strong sense of belonging and identity through the club,” said Hongo. “It shows how culturally-inclusive spaces can impact students beyond the classroom.”

For Ramos, that community building is at the heart of his work in the classroom and on the stage.

“My job as a teacher is to simulate a consistent environment where students can learn and be the best version of themselves,” he said. “Only by recognizing patterns and tools of oppression can students see themselves as powerful forces in a world that needs drastic change. I’m happy I can provide that in an entertaining, musical way.”

A student plays the drums at Roosevelt High School’s Japanese appreciation concert on March 25, 2026.

(

Jesse Reynoso

/

Boyle Heights Beat

)

The concert ended with a rendition of the chart-topping “Naruto” theme song “Go!!!” by 90s Japanese rock band Flow.

For freshman trombone player Eliah Daniel Gramajo, performing the music made that connection feel personal.

“It’s not every day you get to play a piece from one of your favorite anime that you watched as a little kid,” he said.