Judge Elaine W. Mandel, Case Number: 24SMCV05074, Date: 2024-11-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 24SMCV05074, Date: 2024-11-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV05074 Hearing Date: November 6, 2024 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

ACRL 100, LLC v. J. J. Pacific Investment Co., Case no. 24SMCV05074

Hearing date November 6, 2024

Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order and OSC Re: Preliminary Injunction

Plaintiff ACRL 100 sues defendants J. J. Pacific Investment Co., AC Investment Group for quiet title and nuisance COAs in this suit arising from an alleged prescriptive easement over defendants’ property that allowed access to plaintiff's parking lot, and which defendants allegedly obstructed. Plaintiff applies ex parte for a temporary restraining order restraining defendants from obstructing access to plaintiff’s parking lot and for an OSC re: preliminary injunction, with supporting declarations of former property owner Fischer, counsel Kaplan and property manager Weintraub. Defendants oppose, offering declarations of Ahn and tenant Chaudry.

Plaintiff owns commercial property and a narrow parking lot at PCH and Entrada in Santa Monica. Decl. Weintraub para. 3. Defendants’ property and attached parking lot sit between plaintiff’s property and plaintiff's parking lot. Decl. Weintraub paras. 8, 11. Access to plaintiff's parking lot is alleged to run over defendants’ parking lot via prescriptive easement. Decl. Weintraub para. 17. Defendants recently installed bollards and chains preventing access to defendants’ lot from plaintiff’s lot, narrowing access to plaintiff’s lot and reducing the available parking spaces. Decl. Weintraub paras. 33-42.

Evidentiary Objections

Defendants’ objections to Weintraub declaration: Objections 1-10, 12-31 OVERRULED, Objection 11 SUSTAINED (hearsay).

Defendants’ objections to Fischler declaration: Objections 1-2 OVERRULED.

Plaintiff’s objection to Ahn declaration: Objections 1-6, 8-18, 20 OVERRULED, objections 7, 19 SUSTAINED (hearsay).

Plaintiff’s objections to Chaudry declaration: Objections 1, 3-4 OVERRULED, objections 2, 5 SUSTAINED (hearsay).

Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for TRO and OSC re: Preliminary Injunction

Pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§526 and 527 the court may issue an injunction if sufficient grounds are shown. The general purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo until a final determination of the merits. See Continental Baking Co. v. Katz (1968) 68 Cal.2d 512, 528. The court evaluates two interrelated factors: (1) likelihood movant will prevail on the merits; and (2) interim harm movant is likely to sustain if the injunction were denied as compared to the harm the party opposing the injunction is likely to suffer if the injunction issued. See IT Corp. v. Cty. of Imperial (1983) 35 Cal.3d 63, 69–70.

Plaintiff argues access to its parking lot is via a prescriptive easement over defendants’ property that has been used adversely, openly and notoriously by plaintiff and plaintiff’s predecessors in interest since 1970. Decl. Weintraub paras. 24-27. Plaintiff asserts between 9/30/24-10/28/24 defendants installed bollards, chains and fences that prevent access to defendants’ parking lot and disrupt the status quo. Decl. Weintraub paras. 42-43; exs. 13 and 14.

Defendants argue plaintiff failed to properly serve the ex parte application, so the application should not be considered. As defendants filed opposition and objections, the court elects to consider the application.

Plaintiff alleges open and notorious use of defendant’s parking lot for over five years supports finding a prescriptive easement. See Warsaw v. Chicago Metallic Ceilings, Inc. (1984) 35 Cal. 3d 564, 570. Plaintiff demonstrates defendants knew of and opposed plaintiff's use of defendants’ lot. Decl. Weintraub paras. 24-27.

Defendants argue plaintiff’s use of defendants’ parking lot was not open and notorious but a neighborly accommodation. Decl. Ahn paras. 13, 17. Defendants assert plaintiff’s use of defendants’ lot has occurred for less than five years, beginning in January 2021. Decl. Ahn paras. 12-13. Defendants assert plaintiffs did not remove the initial bollards or begin tandem parking until 2021. Decl. Chaudhry para. 10.

Defendants note plaintiff points to tenant Chaudry’s displeasure with plaintiff’s use of the lot as evidence of adverse use. Decl. Weintraub paras. 24-27. Defendants assert Chaudry’s opposition to plaintiff's use does not satisfy the adverse requirement for a prescriptive easement, as Chaudry is a tenant, and the owners gave neighborly accommodation for the use. Decl. Ahn para. 13.

Plaintiff argues it will be harmed if an injunction does not issue. Plaintiff states the presence of bollards and chains drastically reduces its ability to utilize its lot, reducing its capacity from 14 to 3 parking spaces, and defendants erected a fence preventing plaintiff’s customers from accessing plaintiff’s property via defendants’ lot. Decl. Weintraub para. 33-43.

Defendants assert plaintiff removed the chains between the bollards on 10/28/24. Decl. Ahn para. 24. Defendants argue they will suffer harm if an injunction issues. Defendants assert plaintiff’s customers impede customers and limit parking in defendants’ own parking lot by idling their cars and harassing patrons. Decl. Chaudhry paras. 11-13. Defendants assert there is no basis for ex parte relief that justifies the potential harm to defendants. Defendants argue plaintiff has only engaged in tandem parking since 2001, so being restricted from defendants’ lot does not dramatically restrict plaintiff’s historical parking capacity.

The court finds no exigent circumstances necessitating ex parte relief. The parties offer contradictory declarations regarding existence of a prescriptive easement, the length of plaintiff’s use of defendants’ property and potential harms to the parties. DENIED.