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

1,581 chars

14
(Ibid.) Because the Rent Ordinance provided for additional
relocation assistance payments to elderly or disabled tenants, the
belief requirement made the landlord state whether he or she
believed the tenants were entitled to payment based on their age
or disability. (Ibid.) The court held this requirement was
preempted because “it create[d] a substantive defense in eviction
proceedings not contemplated by the Act.” (Id. at p. 18.) The
court reviewed the Act’s provisions regarding tenant notice,
observing that “ ‘[b]y carefully spelling out certain types of notice
which public entities may require, the Act clearly indicates that
only these types are authorized and other, additional notice
requirements are not permissible.’ ” (Id. at p. 16.) The court
considered several ways a landlord’s statements under the “belief
requirement” could complicate unlawful detainer proceedings by
resulting in tenant challenges to the accuracy of the landlord’s
belief or claims against the landlord where the landlord
mistakenly suggested the tenant had a disability. (Id. at p. 17.)
The court also rejected the City’s argument that the belief
requirement was permissible under Government Code section
7060.1, subdivision (c), finding the requirement did not truly
“mitigate [the] adverse impact[s]” on displaced tenants, as
required under that statute. (Id. at pp. 16, fn. 7, 18.) Instead, by
placing the burden on the landlord to state his or her belief about
the tenant’s entitlement to assistance without first requiring the
tenant to offer some showing of entitlement, the belief

Other Sections in This Document (66)

Full Text