Judge: Cynthia A Freeland, Case: 37-2023-00004881-CU-OR-NC, Date: 2023-12-15 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - December 14, 2023

12/15/2023  01:30:00 PM  N-27 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Cynthia A. Freeland

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Other Real Property Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00004881-CU-OR-NC BLANTON VS. PLAYA REAL CONDOMINIUM II OWNERS ASSOCIATION [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 08/09/2023

Plaintiff Lee Blanton ('Plaintiff')'s motion for preliminary injunction is denied.

Plaintiff's request for judicial notice ('RJN') is granted. Defendant Playa Real Condominium II Owners Association ('Defendant')'s RJN is denied as to Exhibits 1-4. The letters, e-mails, and other correspondence set forth in those exhibits are not matters to which the court may take judicial notice.

See Valero Refining Company – California v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District Hearing Board (2020) 49 Cal. App. 5th 618, 645, fn. 11; Lockley v. Law Office of Cantrell, Gree, Pekich, Cruz & McCort (2001) 91 Cal. App. 4th 875, 886. Defendant's RJN as to Exhibits 5-6 is granted. Plaintiff's objections to ¶¶ 6, 8, and 17 of Mr. Biggs's declaration are sustained. Plaintiff's objections to ¶¶ 18-19 of Mr. Biggs's declaration are overruled.

Factual Background and Procedural History Plaintiff has owned the real property located at 1401 S. Pacific St., Unit 202, Oceanside, CA 92054 (the 'Property') since 2020. See Blanton Decl., ¶ 2; First Amended Complaint ('FAC'), ¶ 21. The Property is located within the Playa Real condominium complex, which consists of ten small units immediately adjacent to the beach in Oceanside, CA. See Biggs Decl., ¶ 5. Defendant is a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation that currently manages the Playa Real community. Defendant and its members are bound by the Amended and Restated Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for Playa Real Condominium Owners Association (the 'CC&Rs') which were recorded on May 5, 2014. See Plaintiff's RJN, Ex. 1. On February 3, 2023, Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a Complaint against Defendant. See ROA No. 1. The operative FAC filed on July 24, 2023 alleges causes of action against Defendant for: (1) violation of California Public Resources Code ('PRC') § 30103; (2) breach of the CC&Rs; (3) violation of California Civil Code ('CC') § 5855; (4) violation of CC § 4510; and (5) declaratory relief. See ROA No. 12. The FAC alleges in relevant part that the Property is located within a coastal zone under the California Coastal Act (the 'CCA') and thus Defendant is required to obtain a coastal development permit before implementing new restrictions on short-term rentals ('STRs'). Ibid., ¶ 22. Defendant or the Property's developer obtained a coastal development permit before starting initial construction in 1977 because the construction was a 'development' under the CCA. Ibid., ¶ 23. The CC&Rs contain the following provision relating to STRs: In exercising the right to occupy or use a Unit or the Common Area and its improvements, the Owner and the Owner's family, guests, employees, tenants and invitees shall not do any of the following: ...

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3006840 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  BLANTON VS. PLAYA REAL CONDOMINIUM II OWNERS  37-2023-00004881-CU-OR-NC (c) Lease or rent all or any part of a Unit by the Owners thereof for transient or hotel purposes, which shall include a rental for any period less than seven days (in no event shall a Unit be rented more than ten times per calendar year.) A violation of this provision will subject an Owner to a mandatory penalty pursuant to Section 305(d)(3).

See CC&Rs, § 5.01(c). The 1977 CC&Rs did not contain any restrictions on STRs. Defendant has enacted a mandatory $2,500.00 fine for each violation of the STR restrictions. Ibid., § 3.05(d)(3).

Plaintiff does not live at the Property full-time; rather, he routinely rents the Property on a short-term basis and often lets his family use the Property. See FAC, ¶¶ 28-29. In December 2021, Defendant began fining Plaintiff for short-term renting the Property and restricted the use of the community elevator to both Plaintiff and his tenants/guests. See Blanton Decl., ¶¶ 3-4. On January 5, 2023, Defendant imposed two $2,500.00 fines for violating STR restrictions, alleging that Plaintiff rented the Property over ten times in the current calendar year. Ibid., ¶ 5. On January 16, 2023, Defendant threatened Plaintiff with another $2,500.00 fine for the same reasons. Ibid., ¶ 6. On January 23, 2023, Defendant imposed three $2,500.00 fines plus an additional $200.00 fine for Plaintiff's guests allegedly using the elevator.

Ibid., ¶ 7. Since February 2023, Defendant has fined Plaintiff on 19 different occasions totaling more than $49,000.00. Ibid., ¶ 8. The FAC alleges that Defendant cannot enforce the CC&Rs' STR restrictions against Plaintiff because Defendant did not obtain a coastal development permit before enacting the restrictions as part of the 2014 amendments. See FAC, ¶¶ 74, 78. The FAC further alleges that Defendant failed to follow the procedures set forth in § 3.05(d) of the CC&Rs before imposing fines and other punishments against him. Ibid., ¶¶ 82-86. In addition, Defendant did not provide proper notice of the disciplinary proceedings against Plaintiff in violation of CC § 5855. Ibid., ¶¶ 88-96. Moreover, restricting Plaintiff's and Plaintiff's guests/tenants access to the elevator had the effect of restricting access to Plaintiff's separate interest in the Property in violation of CC § 4510. Ibid., ¶¶ 98-100.

Plaintiff now seeks a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendant from: (1) enforcing the STR restrictions contained in the CC&Rs; (2) restricting Plaintiff and his guests/tenants from accessing the elevator; and (3) fining Plaintiff without prior notice.

Legal Analysis The court may grant a preliminary injunction 'at any time before judgment upon a verified complaint, or upon affidavits if the complaint in the one case, or the affidavits in the other, show satisfactorily that sufficient grounds exist therefor . . . .' Cal. Code Civ. P. § 527(a). In deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction, the court must weigh two interrelated factors: (1) the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits; and (2) the relative balance of harms that is likely to result from the granting or denial of interim injunctive relief. See White v. Davis (2003) 30 Cal. 4th 528, 554. 'The trial court's determination must be 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 to support an injunction. [Citation.]' Butt v. State of Cal. (1992) 4 Cal. 4th 668, 678. However, '[a] trial court may not grant a preliminary injunction, regardless of the balance of interim harm, unless there is some possibility that the plaintiff would ultimately prevail on the merits of the claim' Ibid. See also Right Site Coalition v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. (2008) 160 Cal. App. 4th 336, 342 ('The presence or absence of these interrelated factors is usually a matter of degree, and if the party seeking the injunction can make a sufficiently strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits, the trial court has discretion to issue the injunction notwithstanding that party's inability to show that the balance of harms tips in his favor. [Citation.]'); SB Liberty, LLC v. Isla Verde Assn., Inc. (2013) 217 Cal. App. 4th 272, 280 (a motion for a preliminary injunction must be denied if there is no reasonable likelihood the moving party will prevail on the merits of his or her claim). The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing all elements necessary to support issuance of a preliminary injunction. See O'Connell v. Super. Ct. (2006) 141 Cal. App. 4th 1452, 1481.

The court finds that Plaintiff has not met his burden of establishing all elements necessary to support the issuance of a preliminary injunction as set forth below.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3006840 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  BLANTON VS. PLAYA REAL CONDOMINIUM II OWNERS  37-2023-00004881-CU-OR-NC Plaintiff's Probability of Success on the Merits The gravamen of the FAC and Plaintiff's arguments for the present motion's purposes is that Defendant should not have been able to enforce the CC&Rs' STR restrictions against Plaintiff because Defendant failed to first obtain a coastal development permit in violation of the CCA. This argument is not well taken. PRC § 30600(a) provides that: Except as provided in subdivision (e), and in addition to obtaining any other permit required by law from any local government or from any state, regional, or local agency, any person, as defined in Section 21066, wishing to perform or undertake any development in the coastal zone, other than a facility subject to Section 25500, shall obtain a coastal development permit.

Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 30600(a).

However, as Defendant correctly notes, the CCA provides the City of Oceanside (the 'City') with the authority to require or not require a permit based on the City's Local Coastal Program ('LCP'). Toward that end, PRC § 30519(a) states that: Except for appeals to the commission, as provided in Section 30603, after a local coastal program, or any portion thereof, has been certified and all implementing actions within the area affected have become effective, the development review authority provided for in Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 30600) shall no longer be exercised by the commission over any new development proposed within the area to which the certified local coastal program, or any portion thereof, applies and shall at that time be delegated to the local government that is implementing the local coastal program or any portion thereof.

Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 30519(a). See also Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 30600.5(b), (c).

In this case, Plaintiff has not met his burden of demonstrating that Defendant is prevented from enforcing § 5.01(c) of the CC&Rs against Plaintiff.

To the extent Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction enjoining any restrictions on his or his guests'/tenants' use of the elevator, the court declines to issue one. On January 8, 2021, Defendant rescinded its decision to restrict Plaintiff's elevator access once it learned that Plaintiff had an ankle injury. See Biggs Decl., ¶ 16, Ex. 9. That issue is therefore moot. As to Plaintiffs' guests and/or tenants, Plaintiff provides no evidence that his guests/tenants cannot access the Property through the common area notwithstanding any restrictions to elevator access.

Finally, to the extent Plaintiff's motion is predicated upon the roughly $49,000.00 in fines he has already incurred, he cannot obtain injunctive relief because he has an adequate legal remedy. See Thayer Plymouth Ctr., Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Corp. (1967) 255 Cal. App. 2d 300, 306. As to the balance of Plaintiff's argument, Plaintiff is, in essence, asking the court to instruct Defendant to follow the California Civil Code's notice requirements before imposing any future fines. Injunctive relief is not appropriate in this instance. The court must presume that Defendant will obey and follow the law should it choose to enforce the CC&Rs against Plaintiff in the future. Moreover, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that it is likely that the allegedly unlawful conduct will recur. See, e.g., East Bay Mun. Utility Dist. v. Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (1996) 43 Cal. App. 4th 1113, 1132.

The Relative Balance of Harms Since Plaintiff has not met his burden of demonstrating a reasonable probability of succeeding on the merits, the court need not address the relative balance of harms. However, even if the court did address the relative balance of harms, it would find in Defendant's favor for the reasons set forth in Mr. Biggs's declaration. See Biggs Decl., ¶¶ 18-19.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3006840 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  BLANTON VS. PLAYA REAL CONDOMINIUM II OWNERS  37-2023-00004881-CU-OR-NC Conclusion In light of the foregoing, the court denies Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction.

This is the tentative ruling for the hearing at 1:30 p.m. on Friday, December 15, 2023. If no party appears at the hearing, this tentative ruling will become the order of the court as of December 15, 2023.

If the parties are satisfied with the court's tentative ruling or do not otherwise wish to argue the motion, they are encouraged to give notice to the court and each other of their intention not to appear, though this notice is not required.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3006840