Drouet v. Superior Court, 104 Cal. Rptr. 2d 159 (2001)

Citation: Drouet v. Superior Court, 104 Cal. Rptr. 2d 159 (2001)
Parent Document: Drouet v. Superior Court, 104 Cal. Rptr. 2d 159 (2001)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2001-05-23
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2304744/drouet-v-superior-court/ ↗

Full Text

1,068 chars

We acknowledge that "the Legislature is presumed to have been aware of existing judicial ... constructions of terms, and to have adopted those meanings in framing subsequent statutes." (Bullock v. City and County of San Francisco, supra, 221 Cal.App.3d at p. 1096, 271 Cal.Rptr. 44.) We could conclude that, by the plain language of the Ellis Act and the *170 ordinary accepted meaning of "supersede," the Legislature has shown no intent that the Act supplant, make void, or override Civil Code section 1942.5 in its entirety indeed, had the Legislature intended that the affirmative defense of retaliatory eviction would not apply to Ellis Act evictions, it could have so indicated in clear and explicit language. We further note that a credible argument could also be made that section 7060.7, subdivision (c), was meant to preserve the retaliatory eviction defense in Ellis Act proceedings as a procedural protection designed to prevent abuse of the right to evict tenants. But the Legislature did not set forth anywhere what it meant by a "procedural" protection.

Other Sections in This Document (78)

Full Text