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

1,628 chars

18
“Eligible Tenants,” and children specifically. Plaintiffs do not
appear to argue that the City has no authority to require that
relocation assistance benefits be paid on behalf of authorized
occupants. Instead, they argue the timing of the Rent
Ordinance’s payment requirement creates the undue burden.
The trial court did not sustain a demurrer on the ground that
plaintiffs’ notice of termination failed to provide notice of, or
satisfy, the Rent Ordinance’s payment timing mechanism, so any
finding that the Act preempts the payment timing provisions of
section 37.9A, subdivision (e)(3)(A) would not assist plaintiffs
here. We therefore do not address this argument.
IV.   Government Code Section 7060.6
      Plaintiffs next contend that the judgment must be reversed
because defendants cannot assert failure to comply with section
37.9A, subdivision (e)(3) or (e)(4) as a defense under Government
Code section 7060.6. More specifically, plaintiffs seem to suggest
that only noncompliance with local regulations (Gov. Code,
§ 7060.5) that implement Government Code sections 7060.2 and
7060.4 may serve as a defense under Government Code section
7060.6. Defendants counter that section 37.9A(e)(4) implements
the Act, as authorized by the Act, and the defense under
Government Code section 7060.6 is not limited to noncompliance
with local actions taken pursuant to Government Code sections
7060.2 and 7060.4. On this question of statutory interpretation,
defendants have the better argument.
      In construing a statute, “ ‘our fundamental task is to
ascertain the Legislature’s intent so as to effectuate the purpose

Other Sections in This Document (66)

Full Text