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

1,417 chars

9
      The Act contemplates that an owner may seek to displace a
tenant or lessee from accommodations removed from the rental
market under the Act pursuant to an unlawful detainer action.
(Gov. Code, § 7060.6.) If an owner elects to pursue an unlawful
detainer suit, “[T]he tenant or lessee may appear and answer or
demur pursuant to Section 1170 of the Code of Civil Procedure
and may assert by way of defense that the owner has not
complied with the applicable provisions of this chapter, or
statutes, ordinances, or regulations of public entities adopted to
implement this chapter, as authorized by this chapter.” (Ibid.)
   A. The Rent Ordinance
      The City and County of San Francisco (the City) enacted
the Rent Ordinance in 1979 for the purposes of, among other
things, limiting rent increases for tenants in occupancy and
restricting the grounds on which landlords could evict tenants.
(Danger Panda, LLC v. Launiu (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 502, 506
(Danger Panda).)
      “In May 1986, following the passage of the Ellis Act, the
Rent Ordinance was amended to add [section 37.9(a)(13)], which
recognizes a landlord’s right to withdraw a residential unit from
the rental market.” (Danger Panda, supra, 10 Cal.App.5th at
p. 507.) “Section 37.9A of the Rent Ordinance was enacted at the
same time as section 37.9(a)(13) in order to confer rights on
certain tenants displaced by the Ellis Act.” (Ibid.) Prior to

Other Sections in This Document (66)

Full Text