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

1,549 chars

1
Section 12955.3 of the California Government Code, such tenant shall be
entitled to receive an additional supplemental payment of $4,656.81, one-half
of which shall be paid within fifteen (15) calendar days of the landlord’s
receipt of written notice from the tenant of entitlement to the supplemental
relocation payment, and one-half of which shall be paid when the tenant
vacates the unit.”2 (Italics added.) There is no dispute that two adult tenants
occupied the premises,3 that the stated dollar amounts were calculated
correctly, and that each of the two tenants was paid and accepted one-half
the amounts due when the notice was served and following advisement of
their asserted disability. Unquestionably, the tenants were correctly told
what they were entitled to receive as relocation payments. In addition, the
notice included, as Exhibit A, a complete copy of the current version of the
Rent Ordinance, with the admonishment, “You are hereby notified of your
rights as set forth in Exhibit A.” (Italics added.)
      The majority deems this indisputably accurate information inadequate
because the notice refers to a “tenant” rather than to an “Eligible Tenant” as
then defined to include children and other authorized occupants of the
premises. Granted that if the premises had been occupied by a child or
another authorized tenant, the reference to a “tenant” being entitled to a
relocation payment would have been incomplete and misleading. But at this
stage of the litigation, it is undisputed that no one other than the two adult

Other Sections in This Document (66)

Full Text