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

1,542 chars

30
detail below. A true and correct copy of [Rent Ordinance section]
37.9A is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by
reference. You are hereby notified of your rights as set forth in
Exhibit A.” (Italics added.) Then, at the promised more detailed
description of relocation assistance payments on page five, the
termination notice stated, “You have rights to relocation
assistance payments as follows[:]” and thereafter stated that
“each tenant” was entitled to a relocation assistance payment, if
there were more than three “tenants,” a capped payment would
be divided equally between tenants, and any “tenant” who was
elderly or disabled was entitled to a supplemental payment. But
that explanation was not complete. Although plaintiffs also
attached an accurate copy of section 37.9A to the termination
notice, in doing so, they provided inconsistent information with
no explanation regarding the discrepancy.13 We cannot conclude
that a tenant would reasonably understand that Exhibit A, and
not the language within the termination notice itself, in fact
provided the accurate information. Plaintiffs thus did not fully
comply with their obligation to notify defendants of the right to
receive relocation assistance payments as required by section
37.9A(e)(4).
      Even if the doctrine of substantial compliance were
potentially applicable, unlike our dissenting colleague, we would
still find plaintiffs’ notice deficient. “ ‘The doctrine of substantial
compliance does not allow an excuse to literal noncompliance in

Other Sections in This Document (66)

Full Text