Section 1942
- Citation
- Section 1942
- Parent Document
- Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
- Jurisdiction
- California (state)
- Effective Date
- 2003-08-11
Other Sections in This Document (188)
- Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
- Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
- Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
- Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
- Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
- Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
- Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
- Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
- Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
- Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
- Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
- Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
- Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
- Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
- Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
- Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
- Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
- Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
Full Text
1,754 charsThe majority states that prohibiting landlords from engaging in retaliatory evictions under the Ellis Act would be inconsistent with other laws and lead to absurd results. (Maj. opn., ante, 3 Cal. Rptr.3d at p. 217, 73 P.3d at pp. 1195-1196.) The majority cites Civil Code section 1942.4, which prohibits a landlord from collecting rent for a dwelling that is deemed untenantable, but expressly provides that a landlord who is withdrawing the building from the rental market under the Ellis Act need not comply with this statute. The majority also cites Code of Civil Procedure section 1174.2, subdivision (d), which permits a tenant to assert that the premises are uninhabitable as a defense in an unlawful detainer action following default in the payment of rent, but expressly provides that nothing in the statute "shall limit or supersede any provision" of the Ellis Act. Neither of these statutes is inconsistent with prohibiting a landlord from evicting a tenant under the Ellis Act for a retaliatory purpose. Further, these statutes demonstrate that the Legislature knew how to exempt landlords who are proceeding under the Ellis Act from the requirements of certain statutes. The Legislature chose not to exempt landlords from the prohibition against retaliatory evictions set forth in section 1942.5. *227 " We must assume that the Legislature knew how to create an exception if it wished to do so....' [Citation.]" (California Fed. Savings & Loan Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (1995) 11 Cal.4th 342, 349, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 279, 902 P.2d 297; see County of San Diego v. State of California (1997) 15 Cal.4th 68, 94-95, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 134, 931 P.2d 312; City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 74, 88, 260 Cal.Rptr. 520, 776 P.2d 222.)