Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 23STCV18481, Date: 2024-03-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV18481    Hearing Date: March 12, 2024    Dept: 52

Order to Show Cause Re: Entry of Default Judgment

Plaintiff Orange Grove Village II Homeowners Association requests court judgment by default against defendant Nina R. Chomsky.  Plaintiff seeks judgment including a permanent injunction, declaratory relief, costs of suit, and attorney fees.  Plaintiff’s application meets all requirements for default judgment. 

The proposed judgment plaintiff submitted, however, is overly broad and not sufficiently clear.  “ ‘A permanent injunction is merely a remedy for a proven cause of action.  It may not be issued if the underlying cause of action is not established.’ ”  (City of South Pasadena v. Department of Transportation (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1280, 1293.)  “To qualify for a permanent injunction, the plaintiff must prove (1) the elements of a cause of action involving the wrongful act sought to be enjoined and (2) the grounds for equitable relief, such as, inadequacy of the remedy at law.”  (Ibid.)

Plaintiff has alleged, and defendant has admitted by default, that defendant breached the terms of the homeowners association’s governing documents.  The CC&Rs provide, in relevant part, “The Board, or its authorized agents, may enter any Unit when necessary in connection with any maintenance, landscaping, repair or construction for which the Board is responsible, in case of any emergency originating in or threatening the Unit, whether the owner is present or not, or for any other purpose reasonably related to the performance by the Board of its powers or responsibilities.  Such entry shall be made with as little inconvenience to the Owners as practicable and shall be preceded by reasonable notice wherever the circumstances permit, and any damage caused thereby shall be repaired by the Board out of the common Assessments.”  (Comp., Ex. A, Art. IX, § 3(g).)

Plaintiff’s proposed judgment provides for, among other things, “1. A permanent injunction restraining Defendant from engaging in the following conduct in violation of the Governing Documents: a. Refusing or denying the Association, its agents or employees access to the Subject Property or any portion thereof.”  Such an order would permanently prohibit Chomsky from denying plaintiff access to the property.  It does not limit the reasons for which plaintiff may access the property.  The injunction must be limited to circumstances where plaintiff is entitled to access the property pursuant to the CC&Rs.

Paragraph 2 of the proposed judgment is not sufficiently clear.  “ ‘An injunction must be narrowly drawn to give the party enjoined reasonable notice of what conduct is prohibited.’ ”  (Midway Venture LLC v. County of San Diego (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 58, 92.)  “It ‘must be sufficiently precise to provide a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that her contemplated conduct is forbidden.’ ”  (Ibid.)  Paragraph 2 of the proposed judgment provides, “Defendant shall grant the Association immediate access to the Subject Property to allow for the remediation of the existing Governing Document violations identified in the Complaint.”  Rather than referring to the complaint, the judgment itself must specifically describe the conditions or violations of the governing documents that defendant must allow plaintiff to remediate.  Referring to a separate document does not give defendant clear notice of what the judgment requires of her. 

Finally, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the proposed judgment are overly broad.  “[A] court may not issue a broad injunction to simply obey the law, thereby subjecting a person to contempt proceedings for committing at any time in the future some new violation unrelated to the original allegations.”  (City of Redlands v. County of San Bernardino (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 398, 416 (City of Redlands).) 

Paragraph 3 provides, “Defendants shall comply with all other provisions of the Governing Documents.”  Paragraph 4 provides for: “Declaratory relief as follows: a. Defendant is bound by the Governing Documents of the Association and shall comply with all provisions set forth therein at all times she remains a member of the Association.”  These provisions are the contractual equivalent of “an impermissible ‘obey the law’ injunction.”  (City of Redlands, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at p. 416.)  The court cannot enter a judgment broadly ordering Chomsky to abide by the governing documents, which total 48 pages.  At most, the court could enter a judgment requiring Chomsky to abide by specified provisions she violated.  This portion of the judgment must identify and include the verbatim text of the provisions Chomsky must abide by.

Plaintiff Orange Grove Village II Homeowners Association’s request for court judgment by default is denied without prejudice.  Plaintiff is ordered to submit a modified proposed judgment in accordance with this order no later than April 2, 2024.  The order to show cause re: entry of default judgment is hereby continued to April 9, 2024, at 8:30 a.m.