Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 21GDCV00792, Date: 2023-03-30 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21GDCV00792 Hearing Date: March 30, 2023 Dept: X
Tentative Ruling
Judge Joel L. Lofton,
Department X
HEARING DATE: March
30, 2023 TRIAL DATE: June 13, 2023
CASE: MARCELLINO
PARVANEH v. 484 EAST CALIFORNIA STREET HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, a California
nonprofit mutual benefit corporation; and DOES 1-20, inclusive.
CASE NO.: 21GDCV00792
MOTION
FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Marcellino Parvaneh
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant
484 East California Street Homeowners Association
SERVICE: Filed December 6, 2022
OPPOSITION: Filed March 17, 2023
REPLY: Filed March 24, 2023
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Plaintiff’s
motion for summary adjudication as to the issue of duty is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s
motion for summary adjudication as to the issues of breach of the governing
documents and each of Defendant’s affirmative defenses is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of Plaintiff Marcellino
Parvaneh’s (“Plaintiff’) claim that Defendant 484 East California Street
Homeowners Association (“Defendant”) failed to remedy a water leak from
planters in the condominium common area which affected Plaintiff’s property and
acted negligently in failing to repair the leak and causing further damage to
Plaintiff’s property.
Plaintiff filed a complaint on June
4, 2023, alleging twelve causes of action for (1) breach of governing
documents/enforcement of equitable servitudes, (2) negligence, (3) trespass,
(4) nuisance, (5) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, (6) breach of fiduciary duty, (7) breach of the implied warranty of
habitability, (8) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (9) negligent
misrepresentation, (10) intentional misrepresentation, (11) false promise, and
(12) declaratory relief.
TENTATIVE RULING
OBJECTION TO EVIDENCE
Defendant’s
objections are overruled.
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
Plaintiff’s
requests for judicial notice for Exhibits 1 and 2 are granted pursuant to
Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (c).
LEGAL STANDARD
“A party may move for summary adjudication as
to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative
defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one or more issues of duty, if the
party contends that the cause of action has no merit, that there is no
affirmative defense to the cause of action, that there is no merit to an
affirmative defense as to any cause of action, that there is no merit to a
claim for damages, as specified in Section 3294 of the Civil Code, or that one
or more defendants either owed or did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or
plaintiffs. A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it
completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for
damages, or an issue of duty.” (Code
Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).)
“[W]here the plaintiff has
also moved for summary judgment—or, as in this case, summary adjudication—that
party has the burden of showing there is no defense to a cause of
action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a).) That burden can be met
if the plaintiff “has proved each element of the cause of action entitling the
party to judgment on that cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd.
(p)(1).) If the plaintiff meets this burden, it is up to the defendant
“to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that
cause of action or a defense thereto.” (S.B.C.C., Inc. v. St. Paul Fire
& Marine Ins. Co. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 383, 388.)
DISCUSSION
Adjudication of the Issue of Duty
Plaintiff first moves for summary
adjudication as to the issue of duty. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that
Defendant owed a duty to maintain the planters in the condominium common area.
Defendant manages the condominium
community at issue. (SSUF No. 2.) Defendant is bound by the Declaration of
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (“CC&R”). (SSUF No. 4.) The
CC&Rs provide that Defendant shall “maintain, repair, replace, restore,
operate and manage all of the Common Area and all facilities, improvements,
furnishings, equipment and landscaping thereon”. (SSUF No. 7.) The planter were
the leak originated is in the common area. (SSUF Nos 8-9.)
Plaintiff has established that
Defendant owes a duty to maintain the common area, which includes the planter
at issue. Defendant does not contest this issue.
Breach of the Governing Documents
Plaintiff next moves for summary
adjudication that Defendant breached the governing documents. This issue is
encapsulated in Plaintiff’s first cause of action.
Plaintiff argues that summary
adjudication is appropriate here because a cause of action for breach of
governing document does not require proving damages. However, Plaintiff does
not cite an authority that holds so. Plaintiff cites various case law which
stand for the position that a breach of governing documents is enforced as an
equitable servitude.
“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. Unless the declaration states otherwise, these servitudes may
be enforced by any owner of a separate interest or by the association, or by
both.” (Civil Code section 5975, subdivision (a).) “The doctrine of equitable
servitudes makes enforceable at equity a covenant appurtenant to other
benefited property that might be otherwise unenforceable.” (Southern
California School of Theology v. Claremont Graduate University (2021) 60
Cal.App.5th 1, 8.)
Although
Plaintiff asserts he has established each element of the breach of governing
documents, Plaintiff’s first cause of action seeks monetary damages based on
Defendant’s purported breach, not just the enforcement of the CC&Rs. (Complaint
¶ 63.) Further, in Haley v. Casa Del Rey
Homeowners Assn. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 863, 871, the Court held that jury
instructions for a claim for breach of governing documents were proper when
they included elements for causation and damages. As evinced by Plaintiff’s own
assertion that “[t]he question for damages is a question for another day”, it
appears that that Plaintiff is seeking to take a piecemeal approach to proving
his claims.
However, “[a] motion for summary adjudication shall be
granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative
defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).)
Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication as
to the issue of breach of the governing documents is denied.
Affirmative Defenses
Plaintiff also moves for summary adjudication as to each
of Defendant’s twenty-seven affirmative defenses. In opposition, Defendant
provides it withdraws its fifth, sixth, ninth, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth,
fifteenth, nineteenth, twenty-third, twenty-fourth, and twenty-sixth
affirmative defenses.
Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication does not
address any specific affirmative defenses other than Defendant’s twenty-seventh
affirmative defense. Rather, Plaintiff generally argues that each affirmative
defense fails because Defendant failed to allege facts sufficient to state an
affirmative defense. Plaintiff’s general and conclusory arguments that
Defendant’s affirmative defenses are too conclusory fail to establish Plaintiff
has met his burden.
Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication as to each
affirmative defense is denied.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s
motion for summary adjudication as to the issue of duty is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s
motion for summary adjudication as to the issues of breach of the governing
documents and each of Defendant’s affirmative defenses is DENIED.
Moving party
to give notice.
Dated: March 30,
2023 ___________________________________
Joel
L. Lofton
Judge
of the Superior Court
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an
email to the court indicating their
intention to submit.
Parties intending to appear are strongly encouraged to appear remotely. alhdeptx@lacourt.org