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

1,675 chars
28
(Dis. opn. post, at p. 3) Under this theory, for example, notice of
the right to additional relocation assistance payments based on
elderly and disabled status would be required only if the tenant
at issue were, in fact, elderly or disabled. But Johnson forecloses
such an interpretation. There, the court held that the Act
preempted the “belief requirement” in the then-operative version
of section 37.9A(e)(4), which required landlords to notify tenants
of “ ‘the amount of [relocation assistance] payment which the
landlord believes to be due.’ ” (Johnson, supra, 137 Cal.App.4th
at pp. 11, 16, italics added.) Because this belief requirement put
the burden on the landlord to, in essence, personalize the notice
by stating whether the tenants were entitled to payment based
on their age or disability—information potentially unknown to
the landlord—and there was a substantive defense to eviction for
violation of this requirement, the belief requirement placed a
prohibitive price on the landlord’s right to exit the rental market
and was preempted. (Id. at pp. 16–18.) Plaintiffs have claimed
in this appeal that, similar to a landlord’s lack of knowledge
regarding whether a tenant is elderly or disabled, a landlord may
lack knowledge regarding whether certain “Eligible Tenants,”
including children, live in the rental accommodations. The
current section 37.9A(e)(4) provides a simple mechanism that
provides tenants with information regarding the full scope of the
right to relocation assistance payments under section 37.9A,
subdivision (e)(1), (2), or (3); enables tenants to claim entitlement
to the relocation assistance benefits that must be paid on behalf