Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

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

Other Sections in This Document (78)

Full Text

883 chars
The Yarmark court took the term from a Senate Judiciary Committee Analysis written when the Ellis Act was in its embryonic stage. (Sen. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 505 (1985-1986 Reg. Sess.) as amended April 18, 1985, p. 2.) The Act then consisted of a mere 17 lines of text—little more than the main section of the Act, section 7060. The Act did not contain the numerous, detailed provisions which were later added to limit the Act's scope, i.e., current section 7060.1, subdivisions (b) through (d), current section 7060.7, and the various provisions penalizing pretextual evictions. (Sen. Bill No. 505 (1985-1986 Reg. Sess.) as amended April 18, 1985.) The use of the term "unfettered" is an unhelpful anachronism which inaccurately characterizes the landlord's *171 right to go out of business, and which impedes an appropriate analysis of legislative intent.[8]