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

1,520 chars

33
subdivision (e)(3), plaintiffs’ termination notice does not comply
with this objective.15
      Our dissenting colleague rejects this analysis, saying that
the defendants received “precisely, completely, and
understandably all of the information required by the ordinance.”
(Dis. opn. post, at p. 1.) Although the dissent concedes that the
notice would have been “incomplete and misleading” if the
plaintiffs had provided it in a situation where the unit was also
occupied by a child or other authorized occupant, our colleague
nonetheless contends that the notice here was fully compliant
because “it is undisputed that no one other than the two adult
defendants occupied the premises, and as to them the notice was
absolutely, and literally, accurate.” (Dis. opn. post, at pp. 2–3,
italics added.)
      In our view, one problem with this reasoning is that section
37.9A(e)(4) requires the landlord to give notice of “the right to
receive payment under this subsection 37.9A(e)(1) or (2) or (3).”
(§ 37.9A(e)(4), italics added.) The Ordinance does not require the
landlord to provide tenants notice of their right to receive
payment—i.e., notice tailored to what the landlords subjectively
believe their specific tenants are entitled to under one of the
specified subsections. The reason for this “the/their” distinction
is becomes apparent when one unpacks our dissenting colleague’s
hypothetical: If, as here, a landlord presumes to notify a tenant
of the payment amount to which the landlord believes the tenant

Other Sections in This Document (66)

Full Text