Judge Elaine W. Mandel, Case 20SMCV00786 2023-03-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 20SMCV00786, Date: 2023-03-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20SMCV00786 Hearing Date: March 21, 2023 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Pacific Horizon Holdings, LLC v. Meehan, Case No. 20SMCV00786

Hearing Date 3/21/2023

Meehan Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

Plaintiff Pacific Horizon Holdings owns property across the street from defendants Gerald and Lois Meehan in a community with written CC&Rs. Pacific Horizon leases its property to tenants who operate an addiction recovery facility. Defendant Scott Meehan, Gerald and Lois’ son, has acted as their agent in a dispute over use of the street. Plaintiff alleges the Meehans wrongfully blocked Horizon Drive, interfering with their tenants’ use of the property. Defendants Meehan move for summary judgment.

Objections:

Plaintiff objection 1 OVERRULED.

Scott Meehan objection 1 OVERRULED; objection 2 OVERRULED; objection 3 OVERRULED; objection 4 SUSTAINED (lack of foundation); objection 5 OVERRULED; objection 6 OVERRULED; objection 7 OVERRULED; objection 8 OVERRULED; objection 9 SUSTAINED (lack of foundation); objection 10 OVERRULED; objection 11 OVERRULED; objection 12 OVERRULED; objection 13 OVERRULED; objection 14 OVERRULED; objection 15 SUSTAINED (hearsay).

Scott Meehan/Breach of CC&Rs

The issues to be determined on summary judgment are defined by the pleadings. Doe v. Good Samaritan Hospital (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 653, 661. When determining the scope of the pleadings, allegations are to be liberally construed. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §452.

Plaintiff Scott Meehan argues no provision of the CC&Rs prohibits temporary double-parking on private roads in the community, so blocking Horizon Drive cannot give rise to a cause of action for breach of the CC&Rs. Plaintiff’s Separate Statement (PSSMF) #2. Additionally, Meehan argues no evidence shows plaintiff was damaged. Id. Finally, Meehan argues he is not a member of the community’s HOA, so cannot be liable for breach of the CC&Rs.

Article II, Section 1 of the CC&Rs provides each property owner the right to use easements over the private roads. Interference with those easements could constitute a breach of the CC&Rs. A violation of the CC&Rs has been alleged.

The evidence shows Meehan spat and yelled at the tenants, trespassed, blocked their driveway and harassed them. Plaintiff’s response to Scott Meehan’s separate statement (PRSSMF) no. 8, PSSMF no. 17, 21. Some of Meehan’s alleged conduct falls outside the scope of the SAC, which does not specifically trespassing, yelling or spitting. The issues to be determined on summary judgment are bounded by the pleadings. A plaintiff cannot defeat summary judgment by presenting evidence to support unpled allegations. Nonetheless, the SAC alleges Scott Meehan engaged in “ongoing verbal and physical harassment.” SAC ¶¶20-21. As complaints must be read liberally, this must be read to encompass the evidence presented.

Meehan’s argues shows plaintiff’s use of the property is to lease it to tenants, and the tenants paid timely rent (PSSMF 8), so plaintiff suffered no damages.

Plaintiff argues Meehan’s conduct caused the tenants to terminate their five-year lease early. In support, plaintiff cites PRSSMF 8, and exhibit 18 to the Varozian declaration. PRSSMF 8 states the Meehans harassed plaintiff’s tenants and “the tenants terminated the lease early.” In support, it cites exhibits 13, 14, and 18 to the Varozian declaration, which are portions of tenant Annette Seidlitz’s deposition, portions of the Gal Batzri person most knowledgeable deposition and the complaint in case no. 22SMCV02666, Pacific Horizon Holdings, LLC v. Kelly Seidlitz, et al.

Seidlitz testifies Scott Meehan blocked access to the property, trespassed, yelled and spat. Varozian exhibit 13, Seidlitz deposition, pgs. 45-47. She does not testify she terminated her lease as a result. Gal Batzri testifies the tenants “communicated via email and verbally” that they wanted to terminate their tenancy as a result of Meehan’s conduct. Varozian exhibit 14, Batzri deposition, pgs. 25-28.

Batzri’s testimony regarding the tenants’ statements is inadmissible hearsay. Batzri testifies the tenants ceased expressing a desire to terminate the lease after 2020, indicating the lease was not actually terminated. Id. pg. 30. While Batzri testifies Pacific indemnified the tenants after Meehan sued them, the filing of a lawsuit is protected by the litigation privilege, so this indemnification cannot provide a basis for damages.

Facts alleged in Pacific v. Seidlitz regarding termination of the lease are inadmissible hearsay. See, e.g. Fukimo Mitsuchi v. Security-First Nat. Bank of Los Angeles (1951) 103 Cal. App. 2d 214. Even if the Seidlitz complaint was admissible, it does not allege the tenants terminated the lease because of Meehan’s alleged harassment.

While plaintiff’s tenants may have been injured by Meehan’s conduct, there is no evidence plaintiff itself suffered damages. Plaintiff does not occupy the property. Its interest in the property is economic, and plaintiff offers no evidence its economic interest was damaged. Plaintiff does not present evidence the Meehans caused the rental value of the property to decline or that the tenants stopped paying rent as a result of the alleged harassment. Neither deposition provides evidence the tenants terminated their lease early. The Pacific v. Seidlitz complaint’s allegations are inadmissible. Plaintiff failed to create a triable issue of fact as to damages. Summary adjudication is appropriate.

Additionally, plaintiff presents no evidence Scott Meehan is subject to the community CC&Rs, as he admittedly owns no property in the community and is not an HOA member. PRSSMF no. 21. Even if Scott Meehan acted as his parents’ agent, agents are liable for their own tortious acts; they are not liable for breaches of contracts to which they are not party. As a nonparty, Scott Meehan cannot be held liable for breach of the CC&Rs. GRANTED.

Scott Meehan/Nuisance

The litigation privilege protects statements made during a trial or other legal proceedings, and related steps taken before or after such a proceeding. Action Apartment Ass’n., Inc. v. City of Santa Monica (2007) 41 Cal. 4th 1232, 1241.

Meehan claims his conduct was protected by litigation privilege. To the extent the nuisance claim is based on letters disputing plaintiff’s use of Horizon Drive, Meehan is correct. However, plaintiff provides testimony that Scott Meehan spat, yelled and physically prevented tenants from entering the property. PRSSMF 8, PSSMF 17, 21. This conduct is not related to legitimate litigation objectives, so is not protected by litigation privilege.

Plaintiff provides no evidence of injury or damages because of Meehan’s conduct. Without damages, the nuisance claim cannot proceed. GRANTED.

Scott Meehan/Declaratory Relief

A cause of action for declaratory relief can be brought by “any person interested under a written instrument,” or “who desires a declaration of his or her rights or duties with respect to another[.]” Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §1060.

Scott Meehan is not a party to the CC&Rs and does not dispute plaintiff’s right to use the road easement. His status as a nonsignatory is not enough to grant summary judgment, since under §1060 “interest in a written instrument” can be a basis for declaratory relief, but it is not required. Declaratory relief is available when there is a dispute regarding the parties’ “rights and duties.” It is not necessary that all parties be signatories to a contract to state a claim for declaratory relief.

The parties have an ongoing dispute regarding plaintiff’s right to the easement. The tenants testified Scott Meehan repeatedly interfered with their right to use the road and the property. DENIED.

Gerald and Lois Meehan Motion

Defendants Gerald and Lois Meehan move for summary judgment, arguing all conduct alleged is protected by litigation privilege, and they did not directly interfere with plaintiff’s property or ratify Scott Meehan’s alleged interferences.

Plaintiff presented no evidence it was damaged by any conduct by the Meehans. The only evidence of damages is potential damages suffered by the tenants, who are not parties.

Absent damages, the first and second causes of action must fail. The third cause of action for declaratory relief can proceed, for the reasons stated above. There is an active dispute between the Meehans and Pacific Horizon regarding the extent of Pacific’s right to use the property and road easement. It is appropriate for the court to resolve that dispute via declaratory relief. GRANTED as to breach of covenants and nuisance causes of action. DENIED as to declaratory relief cause of action.