Judge Mark E. Windham, Case 22STCP01915 2022-09-22 Tentative Ruling

If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 26 at the Spring Street Courthouse until the morning of the motion hearing.

The e-mail address is SSCdept26@lacourt.org

The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.

If there are no appearances by either side and no submission on the Court's tentative ruling, the matter will be placed OFF CALENDAR.

Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time.

Petitioner Twin Oak Mobile Home Park LP’s Petition for Permanent Injunction is CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 17, 2022 AT 8:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. BY NOVEMBER 1, 2022, PETITIONER IS TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE OF THE NOTICE OF CONTINUED HEARING DATE ON RESPONDENT. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY RESULT IN THE PETITION BEING DENIED.

SUMMARY OF PETITION: Petition for permanent injunction against Respondent for violations of mobile home park rules.

Petitioner Twin Oaks Mobile Home Park, LP (“Petitioner”) filed the instant Petition for Permanent Injunction Pursuant to Civil Code section 798.88 against Belen Mora (“Respondent”) on May 19, 2022. Proof of personal service of the Petition was filed on July 27, 2022. No response to the Petition has been filed to date.

Petitioner moves pursuant to Civil Code section 786.88 for an order enjoining Respondent from continuing violations of the rules of Petitioner’s Mobile Home Park, Twin Oaks Mobile Home Park (“the Park”), located at 3800 Bradford Street, La Verne, California. (Pet., ¶2.) Respondent’s Mobilehome is located on Space 53 of the Park. (Id. at ¶4.) Respondent’s violations include inappropriate, threatening, and disturbing conduct towards Park staff, management, and other residents. (Id. at ¶7.) This conduct violates the parties’ Rental Agreement at paragraphs 16 and 49, and Park Rules at paragraphs 4(E), 12(A), 12(D), and 12(F). (Id. at p. 4:12-14.)

Petitioner requests an injunction against Respondent from further violations and reasonable attorney fees and costs. (Id. at p. 4:11-26.)

The Mobilehome Residency Law (“MRL”) gives management an injunctive relief remedy for violations of reasonable park rules and regulations. (Civ. Code, § 798.88.) Specifically, management may obtain a restraining order against a continuing or recurring violation of any “reasonable rule or regulation.” (Civ. Code, § 798.88, subd. (b); Rancho Santa Paula Mobilehome Park, Ltd. v. Evans (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1142.) At the time of the hearing, the court shall issue the injunction if it finds by clear and convincing evidence the existence of a continuing or recurring violation of a “reasonable rule or regulation.” (Civ. Code, § 798.88, subd. (d).) The duration of the injunction may not exceed three years. (Civ. Code, § 798.88, subd. (d).)

Although the moving statute does not provide for a specific notice period, Respondent is entitled to reasonable notice prior to issuance of an order on the Petition. (See Menefee & Son v. Dent. of Food &Agriculture (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 774, 781.) Failure to give notice is a violation of due process. (Jones v. Otero (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 754, 757.) Petitioner filed a proof of personal service on May July 27, 2022 demonstrating that the Petition was served on Respondent on June 6, 2022. (Proof of Personal Service, filed 07/27/22.) However, no proof of service has been filed demonstrating that Respondent was served with the Notice of Hearing.

Substantively, the Petition is verified and supported by exhibits documenting the parties’ contractual relationship and Respondent’s violations of the Park rules. Specifically, the exhibits demonstrate that Respondent has resided on the Premises since March 25, 2010, pursuant to a written Rental Agreement. (Pet., ¶4 and Exh. A.) The Rental Agreement incorporates the Park’s Rules and Regulations, and any amendments thereto, thereby requiring the residents to abide by the same. (Pet., Exh. A at ¶¶16 and 49.) Respondent has been in violation of the Park Rules at paragraphs 4(E), 12(A), 12(D), and 12(F) since November 2021 and thereafter. (Pet., ¶¶7, 10, 13 and Exhs. C, E, G.)

These violations included inappropriate, threatening, and disturbing conduct towards Park staff, management, and other residents. (Ibid.) Petitioner issued three seven-day notices to comply with Park Rules to Respondents on November 11, 2021, January 19, 2022, and February 15, 2022. (Ibid.) All the violations remain ongoing as of the filing of this Petition. (Pet., ¶¶9, 12, 15-17.) The Petition, therefore, provides clear and convincing evidence of Respondent’s violations of the Park’s reasonable Rules and Regulations. Nor has Respondent filed any response to the Petition.

However, it remains that Petitioner has not demonstrated service of the Notice of Hearing on Respondent. The hearing will be continued to allow Petitioner to file the necessary proof of service.