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

1,588 chars

26
Farmers Group, Inc., supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at p. 1333 (italics
omitted).)
      Here, the enactment against which compliance must be
measured is the Rent Ordinance. The Act allows the San
Francisco Board of Supervisors to exercise its power to require
the notice and relocation assistance payments at issue (Gov.
Code, §§ 7060.1, subd. (c); 7060.7, subd. (c)), and the Legislature
enacted this allowance with awareness of pre-Act case law that
upheld local government authority to require relocation
assistance payments and to create a substantive defense to
evictions for violation of such requirement. (See Pieri, supra,
137 Cal.App.4th at pp. 892–893; see also Briarwood Properties,
Ltd. v. City of Los Angeles (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 1020, 1032.)
Furthermore, the Act does not dictate the language of local
legislation aimed at mitigating the adverse impacts on displaced
persons or local legislation providing procedural protections
designed to prevent abuse of the right to evict. (Gov. Code,
§§ 7060.1, subd. (c), 7060.7, subd. (c).) Thus, so long as local
legislation providing for mitigation does not conflict with the Act,
the power to dictate the terms thereof rests with local
government.
      In this case, the local government has made clear its intent
that the Rent Ordinance’s requirements be followed precisely.
(Prang, supra, 54 Cal.App.5th at p. 19.) The Rent Ordinance
provides that a landlord “shall not endeavor to recover possession
of a rental unit unless . . . [t]he landlord wishes to withdraw from
rent or lease all rental units within any detached physical

Other Sections in This Document (66)

Full Text