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

1,643 chars

17
subdivision (e) is defined in section 37.2, subdivision (t) of the
Rent Ordinance and means persons “ ‘entitled by written or oral
agreement, sub-tenancy approved by the landlord, or by
sufferance, to occupy a residential dwelling unit to the exclusion
of others.’ ” (Danger Panda, supra, 10 Cal.App.5th at pp. 513–
517; see also Ord. No.123-17, §§ 1–2 [amending section 37.9A,
subd. (e)(3) after Danger Panda to require relocation assistance
benefits be paid on behalf of “Eligible Tenants” rather than
“tenants,” but leaving reference to “tenant” and “tenants” under
section 37.9A(e)(4)].) Thus, what is required is that the landlord
notify tenants, who clearly reside at an address known to the
landlord, in the termination notice of the right to relocation
assistance payments under section 37.9A, subdivision (e). This
simple notice requirement is easily complied with and does not
put a prohibitive price on the landlord’s right to go out of
business.
      Finally, plaintiffs devote much of their briefing to the
argument that, on their face, the timing requirements for
payment under section 37.9A, subdivision (e)(3)(A) place a
prohibitive price on the landlord’s ability to go out of business
because the landlord must guess who lives in a residence and pay
that person relocation assistance on day one, rather than having
the person who claims entitlement to the benefit provide proof of
occupancy before the landlord must pay. But defendants’
argument below was that the termination notice improperly
failed to inform defendants that the right to relocation benefits
included the right to payment of such benefits on behalf of

Other Sections in This Document (66)

Full Text