Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

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

Other Sections in This Document (66)

Full Text

1,660 chars
22
accommodations from the rental market. (Coyne, supra,
9 Cal.App.5th at p. 1227; Pieri, supra, 137 Cal.App.4th at p. 893,
fn. 4.) The City enacted section 37.9A(e)(4) to give practical effect
to the power authorized by Government Code section 7060.1,
subdivision (c). As such, defendants may assert a noncompliance
defense under Government Code section 7060.6 for violation of
section 37.9A(e)(4).
      Furthermore, even if Government Code section 7060.6 were
interpreted to create a defense only for noncompliance with
provisions of the Act, and the statutes, ordinances, or regulations
authorized by Government Code sections 7060.2 and 7060.4, we
would still find that defendants could assert noncompliance with
section 37.9A(e)(4) as a defense in this action. This is so because
the City conditioned a landlord’s withdrawal from the rental
market on compliance with section 37.9A, subdivision (e). (§ 37.9,
subd. (a)(13) [stating landlord “shall not endeavor to recover
possession of a rental unit” unless the conditions enumerated
therein are met].) The Act preempts only “local measures
providing substantive grounds for defenses in unlawful detainer
actions . . . to the extent they conflict with the [ ] Act.” (Yarmark,
supra, 203 Cal.App.3d at p. 171, italics added.) As noted, ante,
the City’s basic requirements that landlords pay reasonable
relocation assistance benefits and give notice of the right thereto
are permitted by, and do not conflict with, the Act. And
Government Code section 7060.6 does not state that only the
defenses specified therein may be asserted in an unlawful
detainer proceeding. Thus, separate and apart from Government