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

1,642 chars

10
amendments in 2005, the City provided for relocation assistance
payments to elderly and disabled tenants, as well as low-income
tenants, who were displaced by withdrawals under the Act.
(Coyne v. City and County of San Francisco (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th
1215, 1219 (Coyne).)
      “In 2005, the City enacted ordinance No. 21–05 (‘Ordinance
21–05’), which lifted the restrictions limiting the relocation
assistance payments to low-income tenants and extended them to
all displaced tenants. [Citation.] For units with more than three
tenants, Ordinance 21–05 set $13,500 as the maximum relocation
payment a landlord was required to pay per unit, in addition to
the $3,000 add-on for evicted elderly and disabled tenants.
[Citation.] The ordinance also indexed these payments to annual
inflation rates.” (Coyne, supra, 9 Cal.App.5th at p. 1219.)
Ordinance 21-05 further stated, “Any notice to quit pursuant to
Section 37.9(a)(13) shall notify the tenant or tenants concerned of
the right to receive payment under Subsections 37.9A(e)(1) or (2)
or (3) and the amount of payment which the landlord believes to
be due.” (§ 37.9A, former subd., (e)(4).)
      In 2017, this Division addressed whether a tenant’s minor
child was entitled to be paid a relocation assistance payment as a
“tenant” under the Rent Ordinance. (Danger Panda, supra,
10 Cal.App.5th at pp. 505–506.) The trial court granted the
defendants’ motion to quash the plaintiff’s summons and
unlawful detainer complaint because the plaintiff failed to tender
a relocation assistance payment to the minor. (Id. at p. 511.)
This court reversed the judgment, interpreting section 37.9A,

Other Sections in This Document (66)

Full Text