North 7th Street Associates v. Constante (2017)

Citation: North 7th Street Associates v. Constante (2017)
Parent Document: North 7th Street Associates v. Constante (2017)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2017-01-04
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4335891/north-7th-street-associates-v-c... ↗

Full Text

988 chars

3
          We note that plaintiff also contended on appeal that the trial court erred when it suggested, in
its ruling granting summary judgment, that because the premises were subject to LARSO, defendant
could remain in possession in order to claim relocation benefits under the ordinance. Plaintiff argues,
correctly, that its unlawful detainer was based on a three-day notice to pay or quit and not on any
provision of LARSO. However, it is not our task to review the reasoning of the trial court, but instead
to determine the correctness of the ruling. (Shugart v. Regents of the University of California, supra,
199 Cal.App.4th at pp. 504-505.) We therefore reject this contention without further discussion.
       4
        Plaintiff is, of course, not without a remedy in this circumstance since it may initiate an
unlawful detainer to recover possession of the premises from defendant in order to comply with the
January 2015 Notice of Abatement. (LARSO, § 151.09A, subd. (11).)

Other Sections in This Document (19)

Full Text