TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs Seth Wilen and Emily Stewart, individuals and as Trustees of the Wilen Family Trust’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction Against Defendant The Churchill Condominium Association is DENIED as to allowing guest room occupants’ access to building amenities except in keeping with their status as visitors, guests, or residents under the Operating Rules.

Plaintiffs Seth Wilen and Emily Stewart, individuals and as Trustees of the Wilen Family Trust, to give notice. 

REASONING

Background

Plaintiffs Seth Wilen and Emily Stewart, individuals and as Trustees of the Wilen Family Trust (“Plaintiffs”) are the owners of units of real property at 10450 Wilshire Blvd., specifically units M-1, M-3, M-4, M-5, and 5J. (Compl. ¶ 1.) They are members of Defendant The Churchill Condominium Association (“the HOA”), an owners’ association established for managing the common interest development known as “The Churchill,” and Plaintiffs’ units are subject to the HOA’s Second Amended and Restated Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (“CC&R’s”), which define the M-1, M-3, M-4, M-5 (“the M-units”) as maid’s rooms or guest rooms. (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 7-8.) Plaintiffs pay monthly association dues on each unit they own, including the M-units. (Compl. ¶ 10.)

Plaintiffs allege that the HOA restricts Plaintiffs’ M-unit tenants from using all common area amenities not specifically afforded to “residences” or “dwelling units” as defined in the CC&R’s. (Compl. ¶ 15.) Plaintiffs allege that the HOA’s property management team informed Plaintiffs and their tenants in October 2019 that occupants of the M-units cannot use the common area amenities and cannot receive packages, and the HOA contends that Plaintiffs are restricted from renting the M-units. (Compl. ¶¶ 16-18.) Plaintiffs also state that the CC&R’s prohibit children under the age of 13 from permanently residing in the building, but Plaintiffs intend to rent the units, and the tenants may have children under 13. (Compl. ¶¶ 19-20.)

Plaintiffs contend that the only restriction on M-units in the CC&R’s is the prohibition that the units cannot be purchased or transferred without the concurrent ownership or transfer of one or more residential units. (Compl. ¶ 25.) Plaintiffs allege that the CC&R’s and HOA’s Operating Rules do not restrict the M-unit residents from using common area amenities, nor do the CC&R’s restrict owners from leasing M-units. (Compl. ¶¶ 26-32.) Plaintiffs also contend that the CC&R provision which prohibits permanent residency of children under the age of 13 is invalid because it violates the Unruh Act, and they believe that the HOA intends to enforce the prohibitions if Plaintiffs rent out the M-units to a family that has children under 13 years of age. (Compl. ¶ 33.)

Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs moved the Court for an order enjoining the HOA from (1) restricting rentals of M-Unit condominiums located at The Churchill at 10450 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90024; (2) restricting M-Unit tenants from using Common Area amenities not specifically afforded to owners of “Residences” or “Dwelling Units,” as defined by the CC&R’s, and any and all amendments thereto; and (3) restricting children under the age of 13 from permanently residing in any unit located at The Churchill at 10450 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90024.

On April 13, 2022, the Court issued its order denying Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction in its entirety. Plaintiffs appealed the Court’s ruling, and the Second District Court of Appeal issued an order vacating this Court’s order. Specifically, the Court of Appeal directed this Court “to issue a new and different order that maintains its ruling denying plaintiffs’ request to enjoin the Association from enforcing the prohibition on guest room leases or rentals, maintains its ruling denying plaintiffs’ request for an injunction as to child residents, and that rules—after consideration of the balance of harms—on whether a preliminary injunction should issue to bar the Association from restricting guest room occupants’ access to building amenities except in keeping with their status as visitors, guests, or residents under the Operating Rules.”

Legal Standard

The function of a preliminary injunction is the preservation of the status quo until a final determination of the merits.” (Beehan v. Lido Isle Cmty. Ass’n (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 858, 866.) “Trial courts traditionally consider and weigh two factors in determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction. They are (1) how likely it is that the moving party will prevail on the merits, and (2) the relative harm the parties will suffer in the interim due to the issuance or nonissuance of the injunction.” (Dodge, Warren & Peters Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Riley (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1414, 1420.) “The greater the showing on one, the less must be shown on the other to support an injunction.” (Ibid., quoting Butt v. State of California (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668, 678, brackets and ellipses omitted.) The burden of proof is on the plaintiff as the moving party “to show all elements necessary to support issuance of a preliminary injunction.” (O’Connell v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1481.)

Preliminary injunctive relief requires the use of competent evidence to create a sufficient factual showing on the grounds for relief. (See, e.g., Ancora-Citronelle Corp. v. Green (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 146, 150 [injunction erroneously granted without verified complaint, affidavits, or declarations to support injunctive relief].) Injunctive relief may be granted based upon a verified complaint only if it contains sufficient evidentiary, as opposed to ultimate, facts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 527, subd. (a).) A plaintiff seeking injunctive relief must also show the absence of an adequate damages remedy at law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 526, subd. (a)(4).)

Analysis

The Court of Appeal stated that Plaintiffs “are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim for a declaration that guest room occupants may use building amenities without being accompanied by a homeowner.” Thus, the Court need only consider the balance of the harms.

Plaintiffs argue that the HOA never opposed the motion for a preliminary injunction as to the amenity issue regarding the balance of the hardships analysis, and this failure to oppose the motion on that issue waives any objections. The Court is not so convinced. The appellate court’s decision clearly contemplates that the Court will consider evidence on this issue, and if the appellate court believed that any argument on this issue had been waived, it would have so stated. The Court did not consider this issue previously, so there is no basis to conclude that any arguments in opposition have been waived.

Plaintiffs argue their occupants will suffer unbearable harms and prevent them from enjoying a significant part of their estate – for example, the occupants will not be allowed to receive mail or do their laundry on premises – while the HOA would only see a negligible increase in the use of common area amenities at the 100-unit, 13-story development. Plaintiffs state that the HOA may only restrict the use of storage rooms and parking spaces under the CC&R’s, and M-unit occupants may use every other amenity. Notably, this is not harm to Plaintiffs themselves; this is harm to third-party guest room occupants, and the balance of harms requires a showing that Plaintiffs will suffer harm due to the non-issuance of an injunction. It is not clear why guest room occupants would need access to all amenities, such as receiving mail at the premises, as they are not tenants if Plaintiffs are precluded from renting the M-units, and a denial of access would not limit Plaintiffs ability to rent those units because, again, Plaintiffs are not permitted to rent those units under the CC&R’s. Plaintiffs themselves are not prevented from utilizing those amenities, nor are any tenants of the main portion of Plaintiffs’ traditional unit. Meanwhile, the HOA would suffer harm because payment of assessments does not account for guests in M-units to pay the same assessments as residents in the residential units (see Muniak Decl. ¶¶ 4-6, Ex. B), so the HOA is underfunded to provide access to the amenities to any guest in the M-unit. Given that Plaintiffs have failed to establish harm to them due to the non-issuance of an injunction, and because the HOA will suffer harm, the Court finds that the balance of harms weighs in the HOA’s favor. Accordingly, Plaintiffs Seth Wilen and Emily Stewart, individuals and as Trustees of the Wilen Family Trust’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction Against Defendant The Churchill Condominium Association is DENIED as to allowing guest room occupants’ access to building amenities except in keeping with their status as visitors, guests, or residents under the Operating Rules.