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

1,614 chars

34
is entitled, but the landlord is wrong (because the tenant has a
child, unbeknownst to the landlord, for example), the shorted
tenant would have no way of knowing that the stated payment
amount was deficient in a case where the notice of the right to a
relocation benefit is, as here, tailored to that specific tenant—
because, obviously, when the notice is tailored to a specific
tenant, it would invariably match the landlord’s calculation of
that specific tenant’s presumed payment amount. In a situation
where the landlord notifies a tenant of the presumed payment
amount (which is no longer required under Johnson), only by the
landlord accurately notifying a tenant of the entire scope of “the
right to receive payment under this subsection 37.9A(e)(1) or (2)
or (3)” can tenants be fully apprised of the information necessary
to confirm whether the landlord’s assessment of the relocation
benefit amount is in fact accurate. Put another way, where the
Ordinance requires the landlord to notify tenants of “the right to
receive payment” as set forth under the Ordinance (by the simple
expedient of quoting the language of the relevant subsections,
including the definition of “Eligible Tenant”), that requirement
cannot be satisfied by a notice, the accuracy of which varies
depending on the identity of the recipient.
      Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s sustaining of the
demurrer.
VI.   Leave to Amend
      “ ‘If the court sustained the demurrer without leave to
amend, as here, we must decide whether there is a reasonable
possibility the plaintiff could cure the defect with an amendment.

Other Sections in This Document (66)

Full Text