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

1,152 chars

3
substance essential to every reasonable objective of the statute.’ [citation.]
Where there is compliance as to all matters of substance technical deviations
are not to be given the stature of noncompliance.” (St. Mary v. Superior Court
(2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762,779.) While strict compliance with many
conditions is necessary to enforce summary eviction, the conditions to which
this standard has been applied are conditions failure to comply with which
defeats the purpose of the statute. (E.g., Dr. Leevil, LLC v. Westlake Health
Care Center (2018) 6 Cal.5th 474, 480–482; Lamey v. Masciotra (1969)
273 Cal.App.2d 709, 713–714.) The purpose of section 37.9,
subdivision (a)(13) is to ensure that a tenant faced with an Ellis Act eviction
is timely advised of the relocation benefits which he or she must receive if
lawfully obligated to vacate the premises. The notice given in this case
complied with that purpose in full. There is absolutely no reason to disregard
the substance of the notice because of the inconsequential reference to a
“tenant” rather than to an “Eligible Tenant.”
      Therefore, I would reverse the judgment. POLLAK, P.J.

Other Sections in This Document (66)

Full Text