Judge: David A. Rosen, Case: 22GDCP00183, Date: 2023-02-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22GDCP00183    Hearing Date: February 3, 2023    Dept: E

22 GDCP 00183 Curtis-De Rago, etc., et al. v. Woodglen Homeowners, etc.-

Hearing on Petition for issuance of orders- February 3, 2023- Department E- Glendale

Tentative Ruling:

Petitioners gave timely and proper notice and service of the petition and of this hearing. Respondent timely and properly filed and served opposition.  Petitioners timely replied. The Court has read and considered all papers in support of and in opposition to the petition.

The Court grants Petitioners’ Requests for Judicial Notice dated November 10, 2022, and January 23, 2023.

The Court now rules on the parties’ respective evidentiary objections, as follows:

As to Petitioners’ objections to the Declaration of Margarita Dailo; objections 1 and 2 are sustained on the grounds of relevance. Objections 3 and 4 are sustained on the grounds of hearsay. Objections 5 and 6 are sustained on the grounds of relevance and lack of foundation. Objections 7 and 8 are overruled.

Respondent’s “general objections” to the evidence submitted in Petitioners’ Reply brief are overruled.  There was little to no new evidence so submitted, as those portions of the Eccles and Schulman Declarations that are admissible generally corroborate the evidence previously submitted by Petitioners in the Declarations they filed and served with and in support of the Petition.  In any event, Respondent has had and will have at the hearing, the opportunity to respond to the material in Petitioners’ Reply.

As to Respondent’s objections to the declaration of John Eccles;

objection to paragraph 16 sustained

objection to paragraph 17 overruled

objections to paragraphs 18 and 19 sustained

objections to paragraphs 20, 21, and 22 overruled

objection to paragraph 23 overruled on the grounds of relevance but sustained as lacking foundation

objections to paragraphs 24 through 34 sustained

objections to paragraphs 35 through 40 overruled

objection to 2^nd sentence and last sentence of paragraph 42 sustained as argumentative only

objections to paragraphs 43 and 44 overruled objections to paragraphs 45 and 46 sustained

objections to paragraphs 47 and 48 overruled

objection to paragraph 49 sustained as to hearsay only

objection to paragraph 50 overruled

objection to paragraph 51 sustained

objection to paragraph 52 overruled

objections to paragraphs 53 through 55 sustained

objection to paragraph 57 overruled

objection to paragraph 58 sustained

objections to paragraphs 59, 60, 62 and 63 overruled

objections to paragraphs 65, 66, 67 and 68 sustained

objection to paragraph 69 overruled

objection to paragraph 70 sustained.

As to Respondent’s objections to the declaration of Michael Schulman;

objection to paragraph 7 sustained as lacking foundation only

objection to paragraph 10 sustained

objections to paragraphs 11, 12, 14 overruled

objections to paragraphs 15 and 16 sustained as to relevance

objections to paragraphs 22, 29, and 34 overruled

objections to paragraphs 39 and 40 sustained

objection to paragraph 42 overruled

objections to paragraphs 43 and 44 sustained.

Ruling on Merits:  The Petition is Granted.   The Court is persuaded by the admissible and uncontroverted evidence that the Orders sought by Petitioners are necessary so that a fair and lawful election will properly and promptly be set and promptly take place.  Petitioners have demonstrated ripeness and standing to allege and prove, and have shown, that, pursuant to Respondent’s bylaws, as well as California Civil Code sections 5100, et seq., this Petition is meritorious. Petitioners have also proven timely compliance with the provisions of Cal. Corp. Code sections 7510, et seq.

The Court is not persuaded that the Petition is moot, nor that CA Civil Code sections 5900, et seq., requiring, under some circumstances, Internal Dispute Resolution, or under other circumstances, Alternative Dispute Resolution, before legal action is initiated, apply here.

Petitioners are to forthwith prepare, e-file, and e-serve upon Respondent a proposed Order consistent with the prayer of the Petition, which appears from page 34, line 18 through page 36, line 2 of the Petition.  Specific dates to be included in the Order will be determined at the hearing.  Attorney’s fees, if any, are subject to motion practice and evidence.  The Court may advance and continue, and re-characterize the Case Management Conference now set for April 10, 2023. The OSC re: proof of service now set for 2/14/23 is advanced and discharged.