Judge Keri G. Katz, Case 37-2023-00029636-CU-MC-CTL 2023-10-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Keri G. Katz, Case: 37-2023-00029636-CU-MC-CTL, Date: 2023-10-20 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - October 19, 2023

10/20/2023 08:30:00 AM C-74 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Keri Katz

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Misc Complaints - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00029636-CU-MC-CTL PADILLA VS SUNSET VILLAGE MAINTENANCE CORPORATION [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Having previously continued the hearing on this matter to allow Defendant Sunset Village Maintenance Corporation to file a sur-reply, and having considered Sunset Village's sur-reply, the court rules as follows.

The court addresses the evidentiary issues. Defendant Sunset Village Maintenance Corporation's evidentiary objections are all OVERRULED.

The court then rules as follows. Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED.

In determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction, the trial court considers two related factors: (1) the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits of its case at trial, and (2) the interim harm that the plaintiff is likely to sustain if the injunction is denied as compared to the harm that the defendant is likely to suffer if the court grants a preliminary injunction. (King v. Meese (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1217, 1226, 240 Cal.Rptr. 829, 743 P.2d 889.) 'The latter factor involves consideration of such things as the inadequacy of other remedies, the degree of irreparable harm, and the necessity of preserving the status quo.' (Abrams v. St. John's Hospital & Health Center (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 628, 636, 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 603.) 14859 Moorpark Homeowner's Ass'n v. VRT Corp. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1396, 1402. See also, Nelson v. Avondale HOA (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 857, 861.

Likelihood of Prevailing Plaintiffs' verified complaint alleges four causes of action for 1) violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), 2) injunctions restraining the violation of the FEHA, 3) enforcement of governing documents, and 4) injunctions restraining violation of governing documents. As pled, the disability forming the basis for Plaintiffs' claims is the 'child's disability' [Cplt. ¶ 10, 20, 23]. The only allegations relative to Plaintiff Rosalinda Padilla are found in ¶ 6.

6. Plaintiffs purchased their Unit on January 23, 2009, with the appurtenant parking spot number 10.

Rosalinda parks in spot number 10 which facilitate access necessary for her as an individual with age-related gait changes, reduced mobility, and balance. At the time of purchase, Carla Ponce, Association's property manager, 'reserved' parking spot number 73 for Lizet which the Plaintiffs utilize for the benefit of Lizet's disabled minor child, Brianna.

As to the first and second causes of action the complaint prays: 1. For a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order that Defendant maintains in place Plaintiffs' reasonable parking accommodation in full force in a parking spot available for use at all hours and days for the benefit of the disabled minor; Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3009505 5 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: PADILLA VS SUNSET VILLAGE MAINTENANCE CORPORATION 37-2023-00029636-CU-MC-CTL As to the third and fourth causes of action the complaint prays: 4. For a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order that Defendant cease and desist from preventing Plaintiff from serving as Director of the Board of the Association with full power and authority; In their moving papers Plaintiffs seek: . . . issuance of a preliminary injunction enjoining SUNSET VILLAGE MAINTENANCE CORPORATION, its employees, agents, servants, assigns, contractors, representatives and all persons acting in concert or participating with it, or on its behalf, and each of them from violating the Fair Employment and housing Act and the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions and Reservation of Easements for Sunset Village, relative to the realty . . . commonly known as 3550 Sunset Lane, Unit 5, San Diego, California . . . as follows: - From continuing obstruction of use of Plaintiffs' requested reasonable accommodation parking space for and based on the disability of Plaintiff's minor child; - From in any manner whatsoever hindering and/or preventing continuing use of parking spot designated to Plaintiffs' Unit to accommodate the child's disability; - From preventing Plaintiffs' requests for reasonable accommodation of a disability.

As Plaintiffs' moving papers do not specify the injunctive relief they seek as to the third and fourth CCR-based causes of action, the court addresses only the first two FEHA-based causes of action.

In order to establish discrimination based on a refusal to provide reasonable accommodations, a party must establish that he or she (1) suffers from a disability as defined in FEHA, (2) the discriminating party knew of, or should have known of, the disability, (3) accommodation is necessary to afford an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling, and (4) the discriminating party refused to make this accommodation. (See § 12927, subd. (c); Giebeler v. M & B Associates (9th Cir.2003) 343 F.3d 1143, 1147; Janush v. Charities Housing Development Corp. (N.D.Cal.2000) 169 F.Supp.2d 1133, 1135 (Janush ).) Auburn Woods I Homeowners Assn. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1578, 1592.

The court finds, even if Plaintiffs are able to establish that (1) Brianna suffers from a disability as defined in FEHA, (2) Sunset Village knew or should have known of Brianna's disability and (3) accommodation is necessary to afford Brianna an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling, Plaintiffs fail to submit evidence sufficient to support a finding in Plaintiffs' favor as to element (4) – that Sunset Village refused to make the accommodation. The evidence before the court is that Sunset Village permitted Plaintiffs to use parking space number 73 until October, 2021, at which time Sunset Village notified persons parking in the common area spaces (including Plaintiffs) to vacate the spaces; on November 9, 2021, Plaintiff Lizet Padilla, via counsel, communicated grounds for an accommodation as follows: There are also compelling, practical reasons why Ms. Padilla should not be vindictively deprived of her assigned parking space. She is a single mother of a disabled child, and her elderly mother (the child's grandmother and co-owner of the condominium unit) lives with them. Both Ms. Padilla and her mother have vehicles and both work. Ms. Padilla's mother works until 11:00 p.m.; Ms. Padilla's daughter attends therapy classes and activities in the evenings (when Ms. Padilla is able to take her after work) which often conclude after dark.

Ms. Padilla's vehicle bears a duly-obtained 'Handicapped' placard, for the benefit of her daughter, and she and her child should not be compelled to park on the street at night – where there are usually no available parking spaces in the immediate vicinity. Neither should her mother, who is a senior citizen and normally parks in the exclusive use spot appurtenant to the condominium unit. The area in which Sunset Village is located is near the Mexican border, and it is considered an unsafe area after dark; more so for women. The Board's actions would force one of these women to park at a significant distance from their home, and to be exposed to an unsafe environment, for no legitimate reason.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3009505 5 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: PADILLA VS SUNSET VILLAGE MAINTENANCE CORPORATION 37-2023-00029636-CU-MC-CTL A subsequent March 17, 2022, email correspondence from Plaintiffs' counsel during the interactive process states: So again, the primary reason for the IDR is to determine why my client's parking space (#73) was taken away from her after 13 years (longer, if you add the period of time it had been used by the prior owners of Ms. Padilla's unit.) The secondary reason is to establish that my client has a disabled child (who is disabled enough for the state of California to issue a Handicapped Placard for her mother's car), and that this disability requires her to have parking within the Association. We have already explained that the disability requires her to participate in after-school rehabilitation programs, which means Ms.

Padilla and her daughter come home after dark numerous times per week. It is the fact that Ms. Padilla and her daughter are not forced to park outside the Association, and walk a significant distance in a dangerous neighborhood, which creates the imperative for them to be able to park within the gates.

[Emphasis in original.] On March 21, 2022, prior to the IDR, Plaintiffs' counsel, in email correspondence, states: Attached please find a copy of the CMV [sic] certificate which accompanies the Disabled Placard for Ms.

Padilla's daughter, Brianna. Also attached are school district materials which document Brianna's disability. These should suffice for purposes of the IDR so that we can discuss BOTH topics which were requested to be discussed: (1) the reasons for the recission of Ms. Padilla's parking space; and (2) the need for a disability accommodation. Ms. Padilla has explained (and will again explain at IDR) why she needs be able to park inside the association's lot when she and her daughter return home after dark.

She has also explained that street parking in the the [sic] area around Sunset Village is extremely limited in the evening, and having to park there would necessitate a long walk home through a dangerous neighborhood in the dark. This alone should justify allowing Ms. Padilla to keep a parking space within the project; the fact that her daughter attends evening programs merely explains why she has no choice but to arrive home after dark on a regular basis.

Sunset Village submits evidence that, after the IDR, counsel for Sunset Village sent a confirming email to counsel for Plaintiffs which reads in part: . . . . The Board has authorized the initial offer made to Ms. Padilla, which is the offer to grant Ms. Padilla the right to use the vendor space, space 115, in the evenings after vendor hours. Ms. Padilla was informed that she would only be permitted to park in the space on a limited basis until such time that the Board develops and adopts a parking policy which addresses the Common Area parking spaces within the Association. This was the arrangement that was discussed and mutually agreed to by both parties during the IDR and that will be the arrangement the Board will recognize going forward.

Sunset Village also submits evidence Plaintiffs' counsel did not respond to Sunset Village's counsel's email, did not contest Sunset Village's counsel's description of the parties' agreement, and did not object or indicate that the agreement did not meet Plaintiff Lizet Padilla's reasonable accommodation request.

However, in Plaintiffs' moving papers, Plaintiff Lizet Padilla states: 'I never agreed that limited parking hours would meet the needs of Brianna's disability.' Based on the evidence before the court, Plaintiff Lizet Padilla's request for an accommodation for her daughter Briana was based on Plaintiff Lizet Padilla's stated need for a parking space 'in the evening(s)' 'after dark' and 'at night.' Sunset Village granted such request and agreed to allow Plaintiff Lizet Padilla to use space 115 'in the evenings after vendor hours' – the same time period referenced in Plaintiff Lizet Padilla's accommodation request. As the evidence indicates that Sunset Village approved Plaintiff Lizet Padilla's accommodation request, Plaintiffs fail to establish how Plaintiffs will prove element (4) – that Sunset Village refused to make the accommodation. While Plaintiffs in their papers on this motion raise arguments as to why Plaintiff Lizet Padilla requires 24-hour access to a parking space within the development, there is no evidence that such arguments or evidence were presented to Sunset Village during the interactive process. Also, to the extent Plaintiffs seek an accommodation based on Plaintiff Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3009505 5 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: PADILLA VS SUNSET VILLAGE MAINTENANCE CORPORATION 37-2023-00029636-CU-MC-CTL Rosalinda Padilla's alleged disability, there is no evidence that Plaintiff Rosalinda Padilla sought a disability accommodation from Sunset Village at any time. Similarly, while Plaintiffs' argue that 'ROSALINDA is already accommodated through her deeded parking space' there is no evidence that this issue was raised by Plaintiff Lizet Padilla during the request for accommodation/IDR process. If Plaintiffs have additional information for the Sunset Village Board to consider, such information must be presented to the Board in the first instance.

The court finds Plaintiffs fail to establish a probability of prevailing as to Plaintiffs' FEHA-based causes of action.

Balance of Harms Absent establishing a probability of prevailing, the court finds the harm to Sunset Village should it be required to expand the accommodation to include access to a parking space at 'all hours and days' outweighs the harm to Plaintiffs in having access to space 115 as limited by Plaintiffs' accommodation request and Sunset Village's offer at the IDR.

In light of this ruling the court does not reach the other issues the parties raise.

If this tentative ruling is confirmed the Minute Order will be the final order of the court and the parties shall not submit any further order on this motion.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3009505 5