Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

 

This case arises from construction on a residential lot owned by Defendant Focus Line, LLC located at 10433 Lindbrook Drive in the Holmby Westwood neighborhood of Los Angeles (the “Property”).  Plaintiff Holmby Westwood Property Owners Association (“HWPOA”) is a voluntary neighborhood association made up of members who own property in the Holmby Westwood neighborhood.   

Many of the lots in the Holmby Westwood neighborhood, including the Property, are subject to various Deed Restrictions.  Among other things, the Deed Restrictions state that a residence built on the Property must front on Lindbrook Drive and be set back at least 35 feet from Lindbook Drive.  HWPOA is empowered to enforce the Deed Restrictions.  HWPOA sued Focus Line for building a residence with much less than the 35 feet set back.     

Trial took place between January 23, 2023 and February 1, 2023.  At the conclusion of the trial, the Court ruled in favor of HWPOA and issued a Judgment in favor of HWPOA (“Judgment”).  The Judgment provides that the existing construction by Defendant on the Property does not comply with the recorded Deed Restrictions on the Property, that any improvements on the Property must be removed by Defendant, and that Defendant shall neither occupy nor permit others to occupy the improvements built in violation of the deed restrictions.    

On August 14, 2023, Focus Line appealed the Judgment in the Court of Appeal.  The appeal is still pending.   

This hearing is on Focus Line’s motion to stay judgment pending appeal.  The parties agree that mandatory injunctions are stayed pending appeal but disagree as to whether the Court should stay the prohibitory injunction in the Judgment against occupying or permitting others to occupy the improvements.  Focus Line argues that this portion of the Judgment should be stayed because the balance of harms tips in its favor.  According to Focus Line, it will be severely and irreparably prejudiced by the interim loss of the benefits of using, enjoying, occupying and/or renting the property while HWPOA will suffer no prejudice or harm.  At the very least, Focus Line argues that the Court should stay the hearing on the motion for OSC re contempt filed by HWPOA.  As the Court denied HWPOA’s motion for an OSC re contempt, this portion of Focus Line’s motion is now moot.   

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 

In its reply, Focus Line asks the Court to take judicial notice of the docket, and entries therein, in the Second District Court of Appeal for Case No. B331094, printed from the Second District Court of Appeal’s public website on May 23, 2025.  The Court denies the request as it could have been made as part of the original motion, and it is unfair to introduce new evidence in reply.  “The general rule of motion practice … is that new evidence is not permitted with reply papers.” (Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537.)   

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS 

The Court sustains Focus Line’s objections to the Declaration of Sandra Brown.   

ANALYSIS  

Focus Line argues that the Court should exercise its discretion to stay the prohibitory injunction in the Judgment precluding it from occupying or permitting others to occupy the improvements.  The Court declines to do so.   

To prevent injuries “from the premature enforcement of a determination which may later be found to have been wrong,” the law has developed a set of rules and procedures for staying enforcement of certain court orders while they are reviewed on appeal. (Scripps-Howard Radio v. Comm'n (1942) 316 U.S. 4, 9.)  In California, a long-established set of rules governs stays of injunctive orders—that is, orders to do something or to refrain from doing something.  What rule applies depends on which kind of order it is.  An injunction that requires no action and merely preserves the status quo (a so-called prohibitory injunction) ordinarily takes effect immediately, while an injunction requiring the defendant to take affirmative action (a so-called mandatory injunction) is automatically stayed during the pendency of the appeal.  (Daly v. San Bernardino County Bd. Of Supervisors (2021) 11 Cal.5th 1030, 1035.) 

The core rationale underlying the mandatory-prohibitory distinction is the concern with preserving the status quo pending appeal.  The idea is that a prohibitory injunction is exempt from stay because such an injunction, by its nature, operates to preserve the status quo; by definition such an injunction prevents the defendant from taking actions that would alter the parties’ respective provisions.  To stay enforcement of such an order pending appeal would not preserve the status quo but instead invite its destruction; a stay would leave the parties free to alter conditions during the appeal, with sometimes irreversible consequences.   

Not so with the injunction that mandates the performance of an affirmative act—the so-called mandatory injunction.  Such an injunction, by definition, commands some change in the parties’ positions. The cases hold that before such orders are executed and the defendant must detrimentally alter its position, the defendant is entitled to know whether the order is correct. (See, e.g., Kettenhofen v. Superior Court (1961) 55 Cal.2d 189, 191; Byington v. Superior Court (1939) 14 Cal.2d 68, 70; United Railroads v. Superior Court (1916) 172 Cal. 80, 82; Clute v. Superior Court (1908) 155 Cal. 15, 18; URS Corp. v. Atkinson/Walsh Joint Venture (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 872, 884; Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Davis (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 827, 835.) 

Here, the portion of the judgment Focus Line seeks to stay is prohibitory, not mandatory, and therefore not subject to an automatic stay.  Notwithstanding, the Court has discretion to stay a prohibitory injunction.  (Code Civ. Proc. Section 918.)  There are no California cases that provide guidelines on how the Court can exercise this discretion.  But Focus Line asks the Court to look to factors considered by federal courts in granting a stay pending appeal.  Those factors include: (1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding, and (4) where the public interest lies.  (Motion at fn. 2.)   

Even assuming the Court were to consider these factors, they weigh against the granting of a stay.  First, Focus Line has not made a sufficient “strong” showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits.  In its motion, Focus Line only blanketly argues that the “appeal is jurisdictionally sound,” without any specifics as to why that is so.  In reply, Focus Line argues that its appeal is likely to succeed on the merits because it filed a timely appeal; the Court of Appeal has “accepted” the appeal, and HWPOA has not moved to dismiss it.  Aside from the fact that these arguments could have been made earlier and a party cannot raise new arguments for the first time in a reply, they still fail to show that the appeal is meritorious.  That the appeal is timely or was accepted by the Court of Appeal does not mean it is likely to succeed.   

Second, Focus Line presents no evidence that it will be irreparably injured absent a stay.  Focus Line has not submitted any declaration as to how it will be irreparably harmed.  While its motion contains arguments as to why that is so, they are not evidence.  The only declaration Focus Line submitted was from its counsel which does not specify how Focus will be irreparably injured.  In any event, Focus’ counsel would have no personal knowledge to attest to Focus’ alleged irreparable injury.  Regardless, as Focus concedes, it may sue for money damages for whatever harm it has suffered, which by definition means it is not irreparably injured.  The Court cannot grant equitable relief such as a stay “in any case where the legal remedy is full and adequate and does complete justice." (Morrison v. Land (1915) 169 Cal. 580, 586.)   

Third, HWPOA argues that it will be irreparably injured because other homeowners may conclude that they too can ignore the deed restrictions.  The Court agrees with Focus Line that this harm is speculative and given that the stay is only for the period when the appeal is pending, it is also unlikely irreparable.  This factor, therefore, does not weigh in favor of or against a stay.  Fourth, the public interest is not implicated in this case and has no bearing on whether a stay should be granted.  However, given that the first two factors weigh against a stay, the Court concludes that a stay pending appeal is not warranted.      

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Focus Line’s motion to stay judgment pending appeal.   

DATED:  June 3, 2025 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court