Section 1942

Citation: Section 1942
Parent Document: Drouet v. Superior Court, 73 P.3d 1185 (2003)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2003-08-11
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2585536/drouet-v-superior-court/ ↗

Full Text

1,880 chars

The majority's reasoning fails because even assuming that withdrawing a property from the rental market under the Ellis Act constitutes "an exercise of rights under a law pertaining to the hiring of property" (maj. opn., ante, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d at pp. 214-215, 73 P.3d at pp. 1192-1193), permitting a tenant to raise a defense of retaliatory eviction does not "limit[ ] in any way" the landlord's exercise of rights under the Ellis Act. (§ 1942.5, subd. (d).) The Ellis Act expressly states that it is subject to the proscription against retaliatory eviction set forth in section 1942.5. As noted above, Government Code section 7060.1, subdivision (d), states that nothing in the Ellis Act supersedes numerous statutory provisions, including section 1942.5's proscription against retaliatory eviction. Government Code section 7060.7 declares the Legislature's intent that the Ellis Act not "[o]verride procedural protection designed to prevent abuse of the right to evict tenants." The procedures for removing a dwelling from the rental market provided by the Ellis Act, therefore, are subject to the proscription against retaliatory eviction set forth in section 1942.5. The Ellis Act does not give landlords the right to evict tenants for a retaliatory purpose. Prohibiting a landlord from evicting a tenant under the Ellis Act for a retaliatory purpose, therefore, does not limit the landlord's *224 exercise of rights under the Ellis Act. The majority mistakenly limits its analysis to whether "a landlord's withdrawal of property from the rental market under the Ellis Act constitute] an exercise of rights under a law pertaining to the hiring of property" (maj. opn., ante, 3 Cal. Rptr.3d at p. 212, 73 P.3d at p. 1193), without further considering whether a tenant's assertion of the defense of retaliatory eviction limits the landlord's exercise of rights under the Ellis Act.

Other Sections in This Document (188)

Full Text