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)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
- 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
Full Text
1,694 chars37
POLLAK, P.J., dissenting
I concur unreservedly with the analysis and conclusions in sections I
through IV of the Discussion in the majority opinion. I agree that the Ellis
Act does not preempt section 37.9A(e)(4) (section 37.9A(e)(4)) of the San
Francisco Administrative Code (Rent Ordinance)1, and that the landlord’s
failure to comply with section 37.9A, subdivision (e)(3) or (e)(4) is a valid
defense to an unlawful detainer action based on the landlord’s removal of the
premises from the rental market. However, I strongly disagree with the
conclusion in section V (maj. opn., ante) that the plaintiffs here did not
comply with section 37.9A(e)(4). To the contrary, whether the standard is
strict or substantial compliance, plaintiffs’ notice gave the tenants precisely,
completely, and understandably all of the information required by the
ordinance. The majority’s conclusion that this was not adequate, in my view,
injects into the ordinance an interpretation not only unfair and unreasonable
under the present circumstances, but sure to cause mischief in the future.
The termination notice in this case told the tenants, on page 1, “You
have rights and obligations under § 37.9A, including . . . entitlement to
certain relocation payments as described in more detail below.” (Italics
added.) Then, on page 5, “You have rights to relocation assistance payments
as follows: [¶] Each tenant of the premises shall be entitled to receive
$6,985.23, one-half of which shall be paid at the time of the service of the
notice of termination of tenancy, and one-half of which shall be paid when the
tenant vacates the unit. . . . [I]f any tenant is disabled within the meaning of