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

1,435 chars

15
requirement placed a “prohibitive price on a landlord’s right to
exit the rental market.”8 (Ibid.)
      Likewise, Coyne found that certain provisions of the Rent
Ordinance, which required a landlord who evicted a tenant under
the Act to pay two years’ worth of “rent differential” between the
rent-controlled price of the unit and the market price, imposed a
“prohibitive price” on landlords’ exercise of their rights to go out
of business. (Coyne, supra, 9 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1218, 1226–
1227.) As in Johnson, Coyne rejected the argument that the rent
differential payments mitigated the adverse impacts of the
landlord’s decision to remove residential units from the market:
Rent differential payments were not directed at impacts such as
the need to pay first and last months’ rent and a security deposit
on a replacement rental or moving expenses, but rather were
“ ‘explicitly implemented to subsidize the payment of rent that a
displaced tenant will face on the open market, regardless of
income.’ ” (Id. at p. 1227, italics omitted.) The provisions
requiring rent differential payments were therefore invalid for
imposing a condition not found in the Act. (Id. at pp. 1229–1230.)
      Unlike the provisions of the Rent Ordinance at issue in
Johnson and Coyne, we cannot conclude that the Act preempts
section 37.9A(e)(4). “Section 7060.1(c)’s ‘safe harbor’ provision
authorizes cities to mitigate ‘any adverse impact’ from

Other Sections in This Document (66)

Full Text