Judge: John C. Gastelum, Case: 21-01216715, Date: 2022-08-09 Tentative Ruling
Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Tentative Ruling: Before the Court is a Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiff Diane Arevalo (“Plaintiff”). This is a neighbor dispute regarding a strip of land between 24982 Ravenswood, Lake Forest, California 92630 (the “Arevalo Property”) and 24992 Ravenswood, Lake Forest, California 92630 (the “Clinton Property”). Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants Richard Arthur Clinton and Helen Clinton (“Defendants”) from: trespassing and/or entering into and onto the Arevalo Property; directing any lights or lighting whatsoever towards the Arevalo Property; playing any music and/or other noises directed towards the Arevalo Property; installing, operating, and/or maintaining cameras pointed in the direction of the Arevalo Property; recording, streaming, and/or videotaping any person or thing in the direction of, in, or on the Arevalo Property; storing, leaning, and/or pushing personal items on the fence located within the boundaries of the Arevalo Property; spraying water onto the Arevalo Property, its occupants, their vehicles, and any other persons or property; storing personal items, decorating, installing any item or structure, using and/or planting any vegetation within the Arevalo Property boundaries; contacting, talking to, singing to, yelling, at, insulting, annoying, cursing, berating, threatening, threatening violence towards, assaulting, and/or harassing Plaintiff and any occupants and guests of the Arevalo Property, and interfering with, directly or indirectly, Plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of the Arevalo Property and/or interfering with, directly or indirectly, the use and enjoyment of the Arevalo Property by its occupants or guests.
The Court declines to consider all new points, arguments, and evidence presented for the first time on reply. (See Balboa Ins. Co. v. Aguirre (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 1002, 1010; Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537-1538.)
The general purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo pending a determination on the merits of the action. (White v. Davis (2003) 30 Cal.4th 528, 554.)
In deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction, a court must consider two factors: (1) the likelihood the moving party ultimately will prevail on the merits, and (2) the balance of the interim harm that the moving party is likely to sustain if the injunction is denied and the harm to the opposing party is likely to suffer if the injunction is granted. (White, supra, at p. 554; Teamster Local 856 v. Priceless, LLC, (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1500, 1509.) “These two showings operate on a sliding scale: ‘[T]he more likely it is that [the party seeking the injunction] will ultimately prevail, the less severe must be the harm that they allege will occur if the injunction does not issue.’ [Citation.]” (Integrated Dynamic Solutions, Inc. v. VitaVet Labs, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1178, 1183.)
“The granting or denial of a preliminary injunction does not amount to an adjudication of the ultimate rights in controversy. It merely determines that the court, balancing the respective equities of the parties, concludes that, pending a trial on the merits, the defendant should or ... should not be restrained...” (Jamison v. Department of Transp. (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 356, 361.)
The Court rules on Defendants’ evidentiary objections as follows:
Declaration of Diane Arevalo Teets
Objection Nos. 1-2, 4-77 – overruled
Objection No. 3 – sustained as to written notes and dates in Exhibit A (hearsay)
Declaration of Claro Ledesma Alcantara
Objection Nos. 1-39 – overruled
Plaintiff requests judicial notice of the following:
1. Grant Deed for 24982 Ravenswood Ave., Lake Forest, CA, recorded on 11/20/2012;
2. Plaintiff’s Complaint;
3. First Amended Verified Complaint filed by the Clintons;
4. Notices of Entry of Order re: Consolidation of Actions, filed on March 22, 2022;
5. Notice of Court Hearing Form CH-109 filed on 3/7/2021 in Alcantara v. Clinton, Case. No. 2022-01248544; and
6. Court’s Minute Order denying Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application filed on 3/24/22.
The Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, § 452, subds. (d), (h).)
Likelihood of Prevailing on the Merits
“To prevail on an action for private nuisance, a plaintiff must first prove an interference with the plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of his or her property. [Citation.] Second, ‘the invasion of the plaintiff’s interest in the use and enjoyment of the land [must be] substantial, i.e., that it cause[s] the plaintiff to suffer “substantial actual damage.” ’ [Citation.] Third, ‘ “[t]he interference with the protected interest must not only be substantial, but it must also be unreasonable” [citation], i.e., it must be “of such a nature, duration or amount as to constitute unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of the land.” ’ ” (Chase v. Wizmann (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 244, 253.)
“ ‘[T]he elements of substantial damage and unreasonableness necessary to making out a claim of private nuisance are questions of fact that are determined by considering all of the circumstances of the case’ according to an objective standard: Specifically, whether a person of ‘ “normal health and sensibilities living in the same community” ’ would be substantially damaged by the interference and whether an impartial reasonable person would consider the interference unreasonable.” (Ibid.)
Plaintiff argues Defendants have created a nuisance by setting up bright spotlights aimed at her property, installing video recording devices aimed at her property, spraying water into the windows of her dining room or towards occupants of her home and their vehicle, and blasting loud music toward her property. (See Declaration of Diane Arevalo Teets, ¶¶ 18, 19, 22, 25, 27, 31, 34, 42.) Plaintiff states Mrs. Clinton’s actions have caused her emotional distress and fear, such that she does not feel safe outside of her home. (Id., ¶ 4.) She further states that her family’s sleep and emotional states have been affected by the harassment. (Id., ¶ 44.) Claro Ledesma Alcantara, who resides with Plaintiff, states he has been verbally insulted by Mrs. Clinton on numerous occasions. (Declaration of Claro Ledesma Alcantara, ¶¶ 5, 6, 8, 9, 11.)
In support of her Motion, Plaintiff cites to Schild v. Rubin (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 755. However, Schild does not support Plaintiff here. Schild held noise generated by a neighbor playing basketball a few times a week during the day could not support an injunction because such conduct would not cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress. (Id., at p. 763.) The court noted: “A reasonable person must realize that complete emotional tranquility is seldom attainable, and some degree of transitory emotional distress is the natural consequence of living among other people in an urban or suburban environment.” (Ibid.) By comparison, in Chase, supra, where the noise created by a neighbor’s air conditioning condensers directly outside the plaintiffs’ bedroom window at all hours of the day and night at decibel levels that violated local municipal code, issuance of a preliminary injunction requiring the defendant to move the equipment to another side of the property was warranted. (71 Cal.App.5th 244 at pp. 259-260.)
The noise complaints by Plaintiff here are closer to those in Schild than Wizmann. Plaintiff does not state Defendants play music while she is trying to sleep or past 9:00 p.m., or that the music is at a level that violates any local sound ordinances. Defendants’ music is not constant throughout all day and night, as an air conditioning condenser would be. As for the other complaints regarding light, video cameras, and verbal insults, these do not appear to be unreasonable interferences from an objective viewpoint. Plaintiff’s claim that Mrs. Clinton has sprayed water into her home might support a finding of unreasonable interference. However, Mrs. Clinton claims she never sprayed water into Plaintiff’s dining room window. (Declaration of Helen Clinton (“Clinton Decl.”), ¶ 48.) Therefore, the Court cannot conclude it is reasonably probable that Plaintiff will prevail on the merits of her nuisance cause of action.
Balance of Harm
Based on the evidence before the Court, the Court further finds the balance of the interim harm weighs more heavily in favor of Defendants than Plaintiff. If the injunction is granted, it would preclude Defendants from trespassing and/or entering into the Arevalo Property, which Plaintiff contends includes the disputed area where the Defendants’ utilities are located. The Defendants’ air conditioning condenser, main gas line and meter, cable service line, phone service main line, and main electrical line and fuse box are in the disputed area between the parties’ properties. (Clinton Decl., ¶ 26.) Issuance of the requested preliminary injunction would mandate Defendants’ removal of these utilities, which would be costly and cause significant disruption in Defendants’ lives. Further, Defendants claim they have a prescriptive easement over the disputed area. Mrs. Clinton states they have used the disputed area since 2014 to walk from the street to the back of their property, maintain landscaping, and store gardening supplies. (Id., ¶ 21.) Forcing Defendants to move their utility equipment when they may have a meritorious prescriptive easement claim over the affected area would also cause them substantial harm.
Because the threat of harm to Defendants if the preliminary injunction were issued is severe, and Plaintiff has not met her burden of showing a reasonable probability of prevailing on the merits, the Motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff to give notice.