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

1,121 chars

12 The ordinance speaks to relocation payments that are
“paid to the tenants.” (§ 37.9A, subd. (e)(3) [“Where a landlord
seeks eviction based upon Section 37.9(a)(13), and the notice of
intent to withdraw rental units is filed with the Board on or after
February 20, 2005, relocation payments shall be paid to the
tenants as follows . . . .”].) Although at first blush it may seem
confusing for section 37.9A(e)(3) to use the term “tenants” in this
clause—shortly before using the defined term “Eligible Tenant”
later within the same section—this use of the term “tenants”
makes sense when one considers that, under the Rent Ordinance,
“tenants” would receive payments on behalf of all “Eligible
Tenants,” the latter term being one that would include an
occupant who is a child. It would make little sense to require a
landlord to make a payment directly to an infant (who would
qualify as an “Eligible Tenant”), for example, but it would be
perfectly sensible to require a landlord to make a payment to a
tenant, such as the leaseholder in the unit or an approved
subtenant (§ 37.2, subd. (t)), on behalf of that infant.

Other Sections in This Document (66)

Full Text