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

1,615 chars

25
in respect to the substance essential to every reasonable objective
of the statute.” [Citation.] Where there is compliance as to all
matters of substance[,] technical deviations are not to be given
the stature of noncompliance. [Citation.] Substance prevails
over form. When the plaintiff embarks [on a course of substantial
compliance], every reasonable objective of [the statute at issue]
has been satisfied.’ [Citation.] ‘Thus, the doctrine gives effect to
our preference for substance over form, but it does not allow for
an excuse to literal noncompliance in every situation.’ ’ ” (Troyk
v. Farmers Group, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1305, 1332–1333,
italics omitted.)
      Nonetheless, “strict compliance with a statute is warranted
when our Legislature evinces its intent that the statute’s
requirements are to be followed precisely. We may infer such an
intent when (1) ‘the Legislature has provided a detailed and
specific mandate’ [Citations], or (2) ‘the intent of [the] statute can
only be served by demanding strict compliance with its terms.’ ”
(Prang v. Los Angeles County Assessment Appeals Board No. 2
(2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 1, 19 (Prang); see People v. CHR Herbal
Remedies (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th Supp. 26, 31 [rules of statutory
interpretation apply to ordinances].) Further, “the doctrine of
substantial compliance does not apply at all when a statute’s
requirements are mandatory, instead of merely directory.
[Citations.] A mandatory statute or directive ‘is one that is
essential to the promotion of the overall statutory design and
thus does not permit substantial compliance.’ ” (Troyk v.

Other Sections in This Document (66)

Full Text