15
because the notice of termination directs that notice of protected status and
supporting evidence “shall be submitted to the landlord’s authorized agent
Aleksandr A. Volkov” (appellants’ counsel) “via mail or delivered in person, to
agent’s office,” at an address in Walnut Creek.11 As to submissions for the
purpose of avoiding eviction, the notice of termination also provides, “Failure
by YOU to submit, within the 30-day period [running from service of the
notice of termination], a statement to the landlord notifying about YOU
allegedly being a member of the class protected from eviction . . . shall be
deemed an admission that you are not a member of such class.”
The tenants argue that the notice of termination thus required more of
them than does the Rent Ordinance, in that “(1) [the] tenant must provide
written notice to a specific lawyer at a law office . . . ; (2) the particular notice
must be submitted by hand-delivery or mail upon lawyer Aleksandr Volkov
. . . ; (3) the place of delivery is [in Walnut Creek,] some 30 miles more than
required [given appellants reside in San Francisco]; [and] (4) failure to
submit written notice upon Attorney Volkov in Walnut Creek . . . via mail or
hand-delivery within 30 days constitutes an admission that [the] tenant is
not protected.” Because the Rental Ordinance “must be strictly complied
with,” the tenants contend that the notice of termination’s deviation from it
in these respects requires dismissal of the action.
We agree with the tenants that unlawful detainer statutes, and the
Rental Ordinance specifically, are to be strictly construed. (See Dr. Leevil,
supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 480; Naylor v. Superior Court (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th