Judge: Craig Griffin, Case: Rancho Dominguez Townhomes Comm. Ass. v. Azadmard et al, Date: 2022-08-08 Tentative Ruling

The Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed by moving parties Shahram Manighalam, and Shirin Manighalam (here “MPs”) on 5/11/22, is DENIED.

As a preliminary matter, the Notice for this Motion fails to identify the nature of the relief requested, or as to whom, or on what grounds, in violation of C.C.P. § 1010. The Motion is thus procedurally defective here. Although the Reply asserts that the nature of the relief requested is apparent from the supporting MPAs, that is not entirely correct, nor is it curative. 

In addition, the Motion fails on the merits in any event. It appears that what MPs seek here is a preliminary injunction to prevent Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Rancho Dominguez Townhomes Community Association (the “HOA”) from enforcing a special reimbursement assessment (the “SRA”) imposed on MPs in January 2022, for a sum in excess of $65,000.  (MPAs pp. 4, 7.)

In determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction, the trial court considers two interrelated factors: (1) the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits at trial and (2) the interim harm that the plaintiff is likely to sustain if the injunction is denied as compared to the harm that the defendant is likely to suffer if the court grants a preliminary injunction. The latter factor involves consideration of such things as the inadequacy of other remedies, the degree of irreparable harm, and the necessity of preserving the status quo. (Abrams v. St. John's Hospital & Health Center (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 628, 635–36.)  The court’s determination is guided by a mix of the potential-merit and interim-harm factors; the greater the plaintiff’s showing on one, the less must be shown on the other.  (Butt v. State of California (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668, 678.) 

But this Court previously found that HOA had shown a probability of prevailing on its claims against MPs. (See 5/10/21 M.O. [“Probability of prevailing is shown here, at least as to some aspects of the claims presented in HOA’s Complaint.”].)  Nothing presented here compels a contrary conclusion.

As for irreparable harm, MPs’ assert that the SRA creates a risk of potential recordation of a lien on their property and of potential foreclosure. But HOA asserts that no lien has been recorded and no foreclosure efforts have been commenced, which the Reply does not dispute.  Imminent and irreparable injury based on those concerns is thus not currently shown.  MPs also assert that the SRA is being used to prevent them from running for the Board and from using HOA’s common areas. But the Opposition asserts that no elections are presently pending, which the Reply does not dispute. That future elections may be affected does not demonstrate imminent and irreparable injury. Nor does a temporary restriction on use of common areas suffice to show that on balance, the mix of the potential-merit and interim-harm factors favor MPs’ here. 

For all of these reasons, the Motion is DENIED.

MPs’ evidentiary objections, asserted generally in the Reply, are OVERRULED.

Counsel for MPs is to give notice of this ruling.