2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)

Citation: 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
Parent Document: 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2022-08-31
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7861646/2710-sutter-ventures-llc-v-millis/ ↗

Full Text

1,651 chars

7
the Ellis Act may therefore go out of the residential rental
business by withdrawing the rental property from the market.”
(Drouet v. Superior Court (2003) 31 Cal.4th 583, 587 (Drouet).)
The Legislature enacted the Act following the California Supreme
Court’s opinion in Nash v. City of Santa Monica (1984) 37 Cal.3d
97, which upheld city charter provisions that required owners of
residential rental property to obtain a permit, available only in
certain situations, before they could remove property from the
rental market. (Gov. Code, § 7060.7.) “[T]he Act was intended to
overrule the Nash decision so as to permit landlords the
unfettered right to remove all residential rental units from the
market, consistent, of course, with guidelines as set forth in the
Act and adopted by local governments in accordance thereto.”
(City of Santa Monica v. Yarmark (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 153, 165
(Yarmark).)
      The “Act contains explicit boundaries, leaving areas for
local control in a fashion consistent with its terms.” (Yarmark,
supra, 203 Cal.App.3d at p. 167.) “[C]ourts both recognize and
respect the reservations of power set forth in the Ellis Act with
respect to local government authorities.” (San Francisco
Apartment Assn. v. City and County of San Francisco (2016)
3 Cal.App.5th 463, 478.) For example, the Act provides that
“[n]otwithstanding Section 7060, nothing in this chapter does any
of the following: . . . Diminishes or enhances any power in any
public entity to mitigate any adverse impact on persons displaced
by reason of the withdrawal from rent or lease of any
accommodations.” (Gov. Code, § 7060.1, subd. (c).) The Act does

Other Sections in This Document (66)

Full Text