Judge Mark E. Windham, Case 22STCP02492 2022-10-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22STCP02492, Date: 2022-10-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCP02492 Hearing Date: October 25, 2022 Dept: 26

PERMANENT INJUNCTION

(Civil Code § 798.88)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioner Marilyn Uhler Wolf, Trustee of the Wolf Bypass Trust dba ABC Wishing Well’s Petition for Permanent Injunction is GRANTED. PETITIONER IS TO FILE A PROPOSED JUDGMENT WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

Petitioner Marilyn Uhler Wolf, Trustee of the Wolf Bypass Trust dba ABC Wishing Well (“Petitioner”) filed the instant Petition for Permanent Injunction Pursuant to Civil Code section 798.88 against Alejandra Sierra Salazar (“Respondent”) on July 1, 2022. No response has been filed to date.

Discussion

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, ABC Wishing Well (“the Park”), located at 20315 Denker Avenue, Torrance, California. These violations pertain to Space 7 of the Park (“the Premises”), which Respondent rents on a month-to-month basis. (Pet., ¶¶2-3, 7-16.) In particular, Respondent has an unapproved dog of a prohibited breed, left the dog unattended at the Premises, and allowed the dog to annoy and frighten the other residents. (Id. at ¶10.) Petitioner alleges that Respondent’s conduct violates Rules 11.A, 11.C, 11.D, 11.F, 11.I. and 11.K of the Park’s Rules and Regulations, which are incorporated into Respondent’s lease agreement. (Id. at ¶¶8-10.) Petitioner requests an injunction against Respondent from further violations and reasonable attorney fees and costs. (Id. at Prayer, ¶¶1-3.)

Legal Standard

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).)

Discussion

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 proof of service on May 11, 2022 demonstrating that the Petition was served on Respondent effective May 21, 2022. (Proof of Substitute Service, filed 05/11/22.) Notice of the June 28, 2022 hearing date was then provided to Respondent by the Court following its June 10, 2022 order. (Minute Order, 06/10/22.) Therefore, the Court finds that statutory notice of the Petition and notice of hearing have been provided to Respondent.

Substantively, the Petition is supported by the declarations of Petitioner’s resident manager, Trish Simpson (“Simpson”) and assistant manager, Matthew Zuniga (“Zuniga”). The declarations demonstrate that Respondent has resided on the Premises since September 1, 2002, pursuant to a written Rental Agreement. (Pet., Exh. 1; Simpson Decl., ¶2.) 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. 1 at ¶7.) Respondent has been in violation of Rules 11.A, 11.C, 11.D, 11.F, 11.I. and 11.K of the Park since March 2019 and thereafter. (Simpson Decl., ¶¶5-6; Zuniga Decl., ¶4-6.) These violations include keeping an unapproved dog of a prohibited breed, leaving the dog unattended at the Premises, and allowing the dog to annoy and frighten the other residents. (Simpson Decl. at ¶¶5-6, 8-15 and Exhs. 1-2; Zuniga Decl., ¶¶3-6.)

Simpson issued seven-day notices to comply with Park Rules to Respondent on March 12, 2019 and November 12, 2021. (Pet., Exhs. 4-5.) All the violations remain as of the filing of this Petition. (Simpson Decl., ¶15.) The Petition, therefore, is supported by clear and convincing evidence of Respondent’s violations of the Park’s reasonable Rules and Regulations. Nor has Respondent filed a response to the Petition disputing the allegations and supporting evidence.

Conclusion

Moving party to give notice.