The case, argued by our firm, centered on the interpretation of Section 4024 of the CARES Act, enacted at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. This section prohibits landlords from requiring tenants to vacate before 30 days after issuing a notice to vacate. The language of the Act, however, led to disputes about whether this 30-day notice to vacate requirement also included a period for tenants to cure violations such as nonpayment of rent.

Previously, the Washington State Court of Appeals added to the CARES Act as requiring landlords to give tenants 30 days to either both cure their violation or quit possession of the premises. Tenant advocates in California argued that this judicial interpretation should apply within this state, thus demanding landlords to provide a 30-day cure period. 

Our firm contended that the CARES Act’s plain language only mandates a 30-day notice to vacate and does not extend to a 30-day period for curing rent violations. The Alameda County Court agreed with our interpretation, stating:

“Section 9058(c)(1) clearly requires that a landlord provide a tenant with a thirty-day notice to vacate the premises prior to instituting an unlawful detainer action. The statute is silent as to whether the notice to vacate also requires a landlord to give a tenant thirty days to cure the nonpayment of rent.”

This ruling aligns with the statutory construction principle, focusing on the plain and unambiguous language of the statute. The Court further referenced the context in which the CARES Act was enacted, affirming that Congress intended the 30-day notice solely for vacating the premises in failure-to-pay-rent cases.

The decision underscores the legal framework established by the CARES Act, offering clarity for landlords navigating post-pandemic eviction protocols. While tenant advocates may seek broader interpretations, this ruling reinforces landlords’ rights to proceed with eviction after a 30-day notice without an additional cure period.

Our firm is proud to have represented the interests of property owners in this pivotal case, ensuring a balanced application of the CARES Act that respects both tenant protections and landlord rights.