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

1,606 chars

23
Code section 7060.6, the City created a defense to eviction that
does not conflict with the Act.
      Indeed, plaintiffs’ contrary interpretation—whereby
Government Code section 7060.6 would allow a defense only for
noncompliance with the provisions of the Act and local statutes,
ordinances, or regulations authorized by Government Code
sections 7060.2 and 7060.4, while at the same time prohibiting a
defense for failure to comply with the general notice and
relocation assistance payments requirements of section 37.9A,
subdivision (e)—would be absurd. Under plaintiffs’ view,
although a local ordinance may validly require notice and
reasonable relocation assistance payments in evictions under the
Act, failure to comply with those requirements could not be a
defense to summary eviction. Plaintiffs suggest that tenants
could instead bring separate lawsuits against owners after
having been evicted. But one main purpose of relocation
assistance payments is to provide displaced tenants with money
to assist with the costs of moving. Any construction of
Government Code section 7060.6 that prohibits a tenant from
defending against summary eviction based on the owner’s failure
to notify the tenant of the right to relocation assistance benefits
or to provide such benefits would largely defeat the purpose of
the notice and relocation assistance requirements, and thus
undermine the mitigation measures authorized by the Act.
V.    Compliance with the Rent Ordinance
      Plaintiffs’ final argument requires us to determine whether
the termination notice complied with section 37.9A(e)(4) and,

Other Sections in This Document (66)

Full Text