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

1,591 chars

11
subdivision (e)(3) to require payment of relocation assistance to a
“tenant,” and finding that a lawful minor occupant was not a
“tenant” as defined in the Rent Ordinance. (Id. at p. 523.)
      After Danger Panda, the City enacted ordinance No. 123-17
to amend section 37.9A, subdivision (e)(3). This provision
provided in pertinent part, “Where a landlord seeks eviction
based upon Section 37.9(a)(13), and the notice of intent to
withdraw rental units is filed with the Board on or after
February 20, 2005, relocation payments shall be paid to the
tenants as follows: [¶] (A) Subject to subsections 37.9A(e)(3)(B),
(C) and (D) below, the landlord shall be required to pay a
relocation benefit on behalf of each authorized occupant of the
rental unit regardless of the occupant’s age (“Eligible Tenant”).
The amount of the relocation benefit shall be $4,500 per Eligible
Tenant, one-half of which shall be paid at the time of the service
of the notice of termination of tenancy, and one-half of which
shall be paid when the Eligible Tenant vacates the unit.”
(§ 37.9A, subd. (e)(3)(A), italics added.) For units with more than
three “Eligible Tenants,” $13,500 is the maximum relocation
payment, in addition to the $3,000 add-on for evicted elderly and
disabled tenants, and payments are indexed to annual inflation
rates. (Id. at subd. (e)(3)(B)–(D).) The Rent Ordinance still
provided that “[a]ny 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).”
(§ 37.9A(e)(4).)

Other Sections in This Document (66)

Full Text