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

1,360 chars

27
structure and, in addition, in the case of any detached physical
structure containing three or fewer rental units, any other rental
units on the same lot, and complies in full with Section 37.9A
with respect to each such unit[.]”11 (§ 37.9, subd. (a)(13), italics
added.) “In full” is synonymous with “fully,” which means “in a
full manner or degree: completely.” (Webster’s New Collegiate
Dict. (1981) p. 460.) On its face, then, the Rent Ordinance
requires complete compliance with section 37.9A(e)(4). Section
37.9A(e)(4) also states that “[a]ny notice to quit pursuant to
Section 37.9(a)(13) shall notify the tenant or tenants concerned of
the right to receive payment under Subsections 37.9A(e)(1) or (2)
or (3)[.]” (Italics added.) Use of the word “shall,” coupled with
the plain language of section 37.9, subdivision (a)(13), evinces the
San Francisco Board of Supervisors’ intent that the notice
requirement under section 37.9A(e)(4) be complied with precisely.
      Further, the directive at issue is that the landlord notify
tenants of the full scope of the right to receive relocation
assistance payments under section 37.9A, subdivision (e)(1), (2),
or (3). In finding compliance here, our dissenting colleague seems
to suggest that the statute only requires the landlord to provide
notice personalized to each tenant’s specific circumstances.

Other Sections in This Document (66)

Full Text