Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 24CHCV03575, Date: 2025-04-10 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assistant in North Valley Department F49, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2249.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org.
All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies). 

Case Number: 24CHCV03575    Hearing Date: April 10, 2025    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

DEMURRER

Motion filed: 12/27/24

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Blake Allan Baker and Kristen Lynn Baker

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Westridge Estates Neighborhood Association

NOTICE: OK.

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order sustaining Defendants’ Demurrer to all causes of action asserted in Plaintiff’s Complaint.

TENTATIVE RULING: The Demurrer is OVERRULED.

BACKGROUND

This action arises from the alleged breach of the governing documents of a common interest development by Defendants concerning their property located at 25736 Oak Meadow Drive, Valencia, California 91381 (the “Subject Property”).

On October 3, 2024, Plaintiff Westridge Estates Neighborhood Association (“Plaintiff” or the “Association”) filed a Complaint against Defendants Blake Allan Baker and Kristen Lynn Baker, trustees of the Baker Family Trust dated July 8, 2019, (collectively, “Defendants” or “Bakers”), and Does 1 through 25, alleging two causes of action: (1) breach of governing documents and injunctive relief, and (2) breach of governing documents – declaratory relief.

On December 27, 2024, Defendants filed the instant Demurrer (the “Demurrer”). Subsequently, Plaintiff filed an Opposition on March 6, 2025, and Defendants submitted a Reply on March 17, 2025.

ANALYSIS

A demurrer is an objection to a pleading, the grounds for which are apparent from either the face of the complaint or a matter of which the court may take judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (a); see also Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The purpose of a demurrer is to challenge the sufficiency of a pleading “by raising questions of law.” (Postley v. Harvey (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 280, 286.)

At the pleading stage, a plaintiff needs only allege ultimate facts sufficient to apprise the defendant of the factual basis for the claim against them. (Semole v. Sansoucie (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 714, 721.) “In the construction of a pleading, for the purpose of determining its effect, its allegations must be liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice between the parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.) The court “treat[s] the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law[.]” (Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 525 (Berkley).) In applying these standards, the court liberally construes the complaint to determine whether a cause of action has been stated. (Picton v. Anderson Union High School Dist. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 726, 733.)

A.    Meet and Confer

A party filing a demurrer “shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a).) A failure to meet and confer does not constitute grounds to sustain or overrule a demurrer. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(4).)

“[I]f the parties are not able to meet and confer at least 5 days before the date the responsive pleading is due, the demurring party shall be granted an automatic 30-day extension of time within which to file a responsive pleading, by filing and serving, on or before the date on which a demurrer would be due, a declaration stating under penalty of perjury that a good faith attempt to meet and confer was made and explaining the reasons why the parties could not meet and confer.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(2).)

Here, Defendants did not satisfy the requirement to meet and confer in person or by telephone. Instead, Defendants filed a declaration pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, subdivision (a)(2), seeking and obtaining an automatic extension.

Nonetheless, the Court, in its discretion, proceeds to review the merits of the Demurrer and the parties’ responding papers.

B.     First Cause of Action – Breach of Governing Documents and Injunctive Relief

This cause of action arises from Defendants’ alleged violation of the community’s governing documents, including the Amended and Restated Master Declaration of Establishment of Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions for Westridge Valencia (the “CC&Rs”). (Compl. ¶ 6.)

Restrictive covenants and recorded declarations are written agreements governed by contract principles. (Frances T. v. Vill. Green Owners Assn. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 490, 512; Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Assn. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 361, 364; Civ. Code, § 5975, subd. (a) [“The covenants and restrictions in the declaration shall be enforceable equitable servitudes, unless unreasonable, and shall inure to the benefit of and bind all owners of separate interests in the development.”])

To state a cause of action for breach of contract, a party must allege: (1) existence of contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach (or anticipatory breach), and (4) resulting damage. (Acoustics, Inc. v. Trepte Constr. Co. (1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 887, 913.)

Here, Defendants argue that the First Cause of Action is subject to Demurrer because the Complaint has failed to (1) allege that Plaintiff complied with its own governing documents’ procedures; (2) allege reasonableness or good faith of Plaintiff; and (3) specify irreparable harm as required for injunctive relief. (Dem. at pp. 7-9.)

The Court now proceeds to address these arguments in turn.

(1)   Plaintiff’s Own Compliance with Governing Documents

California law requires the plaintiff to allege performance or excuse. (Careau & Co. v. Sec. Pac. Bus. Credit, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1371, 1389.) This requirement can be satisfied by allegations in general terms without stating the facts showing such performance. (Ibid.)

It is also well established that homeowners' associations must exercise their authority to approve or disapprove an individual homeowner's construction or improvement plans in conformity with the declaration of covenants and restrictions, and in good faith. (Hannula v. Hacienda Homes (1949) 34 Cal.2d 442, 447.)

Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not adequately alleged its own compliance with procedural obligations under the governing documents. Specifically, Defendants contend that the Complaint omits allegations regarding: (1) whether Plaintiff provided any timely feedback on Defendants’ architectural applications; (2) whether Plaintiff made any good-faith efforts to clarify what was required for compliance; and (3) whether any consideration was given for appropriate variance. (Dem. at pp. 7-8.)

Here, Defendants concede that, following their acquisition of the Subject Property, and under the mistaken belief that their improvements did not require Plaintiff’s approval, they undertook the construction of several backyard structures, including a waterfall and pond, colonnade, and gazebo. (Mot. at p. 4.) Thereafter, upon learning of the approval requirements, Defendants submitted multiple architectural applications and a formal letter requesting variances. (Ibid.)

Thus, Defendants’ argument essentially challenges the adequacy of Plaintiff’s process for evaluating the alleged noncompliant construction and the subsequent requests for variances. These issues, however, involve factual disputes that are not appropriate for consideration at the demurrer stage. The Court reviewing a demurrer accepts the allegations of the Complaint as true and may not consider any factual contentions. Here, whether Plaintiff’s determination of Defendants’ noncompliance was made correctly, or whether Defendants actually violated the CC&Rs, constitutes factual disputes, and therefore is not considered. (Berkley, supra, 152 Cal.App.4th at p. 525.)

The Court also notes that if the Complaint sufficiently alleges a breach of the CC&Rs, which suffices as at least one viable legal theory, notwithstanding potential procedural challenges raised by Defendants concerning their subsequent application and request for variances.

Here, the Court finds that the Complaint sufficiently alleges such a breach. First, it is undisputed that the CC&Rs are valid and binding on Defendants. (Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC (2012) 55 Cal.4th 223, 241 (Pinnacle) [“There appears no question that, under the Davis-Stirling Act, each owner of a condominium unit either has expressly consented or is deemed by law to have agreed to the terms in a recorded declaration”].) Homeowners agree they are subject to the CC&Rs. A validly enacted restriction is binding on homeowners “unless the restriction is arbitrary, imposes burdens on the use of lands it affects that substantially outweigh the restriction’s benefits to the development’s residents, or violates a fundamental public policy.” (Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Assn. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 361, 386.) Defendants here raise no issue with the enforceability of the CC&Rs.

Second, Plaintiff claims that Defendants violated Section 7.1 of the CC&Rs, which states: “No building, fence, wall or other structure, landscaping or improvement (collectively “Improvement”) shall be commenced, erected, placed or altered upon any Lot or Condominium until the location and full, complete and legible plans and specifications, in form acceptable to the Board of the Community Architectural Control Committee, showing the nature, kind, shape, height and materials, including the color scheme, have been submitted by personal delivery or certified mail, return receipt requested, to and approved in writing as to harmony of external design and location of surrounding structures and topography by the Board of Directors of the Master Association, or by an architectural committee appointed by the Board of Directors…” (Compl. ¶ 15.) The Complaint also references Section 7.1.3 of the CC&Rs, which requires each owner to “be responsible for obtaining all necessary approvals or permits from applicable governmental entities or agencies and shall comply with all laws, codes and regulations concerning the construction of any Improvement.” (Id. ¶ 16.)

To establish a breach, Plaintiff alleges that “Defendants have and continue to violate the Association’s Governing Documents by making unauthorized and unapproved modifications to the Property.” (Compl. ¶ 14.) “Specifically, Defendants erected a gazebo, colonnade, waterfall and a pond without prior approval from the Association. The gazebo, colonnade, waterfall and pond violate the provisions of the Association’s Architectural Guidelines and the CC&Rs. Additionally, Defendants failed to obtain the necessary permits for the gazebo and colonnade. The Association is informed and believes that Defendants have failed to obtain any permits to date.” (Ibid.)

Third, the Court finds that the Complaint contains sufficient allegations from which Plaintiff’s substantial compliance with procedural requirements can be inferred. For instance, Plaintiff alleges that it “made several efforts to resolve the issues with Defendants, but Defendants have failed to obtain the necessary permits for the unauthorized modifications in violation of the CC&Rs.” (Compl. ¶ 22.) The Complaint further states, “[d]espite demands to comply with the Governing Documents, Defendants continue to act in violation of the aforesaid provisions of the Governing Documents...” (Id. ¶ 21.) These allegations demonstrate that Plaintiff provided notice and made demands for compliance. At a minimum, these allegations are adequate to place Defendants on notice of the claims asserted and the factual basis supporting those claims. (Committee on Children’s Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp., (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 211-212.)

Accordingly, applying the reviewing standards for a demurrer, the Court finds Defendants’ first argument to be unpersuasive and insufficient to warrant sustaining the Demurrer as to the First Cause of Action.

(2)   Reasonableness or Good Faith

“The criteria for testing the reasonableness of an exercise of such a power by an owners' association are (1) whether the reason for withholding approval is rationally related to the protection, preservation or proper operation of the property and the purposes of the Association as set forth in its governing instruments and (2) whether the power was exercised in a fair and nondiscriminatory manner. [Citations.]” (Laguna Royale Owners Assn. v. Darger (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 670, 683–684.)

Here, the Court finds sufficient allegations in the Complaint to support a claim that Plaintiff acted reasonably and in good faith. Specifically, the Complaint alleges: “The Association ... is not required to first attempt to resolve this matter through alternative dispute resolution prior to filing of this lawsuit. The Association nonetheless offered to mediate with Defendants, who did not respond or accept the offer to mediate.” (Compl. ¶ 11.) “The Association has made several efforts to resolve the issues with Defendants but has failed to obtain the necessary permits for the unauthorized modifications in violation of the CC&Rs.” (Id. ¶ 22.)

These allegations, taken as true for the purpose of demurrer, are sufficient to establish that the Association acted in good faith to resolve the dispute and that its action may have been rationally related to the protection and enforcement of the community’s architectural standards.

While Plaintiff will ultimately bear the burden of presenting evidence to prove that it exercised its power reasonably and fairly, it is not required to do so at the pleading stage. At this stage, the Complaint needs only allege ultimate facts; evidentiary minutiae are not required. (Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550.)

(3)   Irreparable Harm

Civil Code section 5975 provides: “[t]he covenants and restrictions in the declaration shall be enforceable equitable servitudes, unless unreasonable, and shall inure to the benefit of and bind all owners of separate interests in the development. Unless the declaration states otherwise, these servitudes may be enforced by any owner of a separate interest or by the association, or by both.” (Civ. Code, § 5975, subd. (a).)

Consistent with this principle, well-accepted California law recognizes that a homeowners’ association or an individual homeowner may sue for damages and an injunction to compel compliance with the provisions of the community’s recorded declaration. (See Cohen v. Kite Hill Community Assn. (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 642.)

Here, the Section 9.1 of the CC&Rs provides, in part, that “[t]he Declarant, the Merchant Builders, the Master Association and any Owners shall have the right, but not the obligation, to enforce by any proceeding at law or in equity[.]” (Compl. Ex. “2.”)

Furthermore, the Complaint alleges that monetary damages would be inadequate to remedy the harm arising from Defendants’ noncompliance. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges: “The Association has no adequate remedy at law to compel Defendants to comply with its Governing Documents, nor can the Association be compensated adequately for injuries simply by an award of damages in that it will be impossible for the Association to determine the precise amount of damages it will suffer if Defendants are not compelled to comply with its Governing Documents; the usefulness and economic value of the Development will be substantially diminished; and efforts of other owners to modify their separate interests will be prejudiced.” (Compl. ¶ 24.)

The Court finds these allegations sufficient to plead irreparable harm. The CC&Rs constitute equitable servitudes imposed upon all homeowners in the community for the benefit of all homeowners. The servitude was typically intended to assure a uniformity of appearance and maintain aesthetic and architectural consistency within the community. As such, violations of restrictions may result in injuries that are inherently difficult to quantify and not fully compensable by an award of monetary damages alone.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has adequately alleged a basis for injunctive relief.

Based on the foregoing, the Court OVERRULES the Demurrer as to the First Cause of Action.

C.    Second Cause of Action – Breach of Governing Documents Declaratory Relief

“Strictly speaking, a demurrer is a procedurally inappropriate method for disposing of a complaint for declaratory relief.” (Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Continental Ins. Co. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 187, 221 [disapproved on other grounds].) Nevertheless, the court may sustain a demurrer to a declaratory relief claim if the complaint fails to allege an actual or present controversy, or that the controversy is not “justiciable.” The court also may sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if it determines that a judicial declaration is not “necessary or proper at the time under all the circumstances.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1061; DeLaura v. Beckett (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 542, 545.)

“The fundamental basis of declaratory relief is the existence of an actual, present controversy over a proper subject. [Citation]” (City of Cotati v. Cashman (2002) 29 Cal.4th 69, 79, emphasis in original.)

            Here, the Complaint pleads the following: “[a]n actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the Association and Defendants concerning their respective rights and duties alleged herein above. The Association maintains that it has the right, duty and power to contract for legal services and to prosecute any action to enforce its rights and obligations with regard to any property within the Development. The Association is informed and believes that Defendants maintain that they are not required to comply with the Governing Documents and/or that the modifications are compliant with the Association’s Governing Documents. Accordingly, the Association requests that the Court adjudicate said controversy and issue its declaration based thereon.” (Compl. ¶ 28.) Additionally, “[t]he continued failure by Defendants to obtain requisite permits for modifications that Defendants made to the Property without the Association’s prior approval is an unlawful violation of the Association’s CC&Rs,” (Id. ¶ 20.)

            The Court finds the above allegations sufficiently assert the existence of an ongoing and actual controversy between the parties. Plaintiff contends that the CC&Rs prohibit the construction of certain improvements without prior approval, while Defendants allegedly maintain that they are not in violation of the CC&Rs. (Compl. ¶ 28.) Although the underlying construction was completed in 2020, the controversy remains active and present due to Defendants’ allegedly continued failure to obtain the required permit or secure Association approval. (Id. ¶ 20.)

            Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has alleged a justiciable controversy warranting declaratory relief under the circumstances.

Therefore, the Court OVERRULES the Demurrer as to the Second Cause of Action.

CONCLUSION

Defendants Blake Allan Baker and Kristen Lynn Baker’s Demurrer to the Complaint is OVERRULED.

Defendants Blake Allan Baker and Kristen Lynn Baker are ordered to file and serve their responsive pleadings within 20 days.

Moving party to give notice.