Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 24SMCV05536, Date: 2024-11-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV05536    Hearing Date: November 18, 2024    Dept: I

The request for a TRO is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.  Plaintiff asserts that it owns a very exclusive piece of property.  Plaintiff leased the property to defendant for 2 months.  Plaintiff asserts that defendant is breaching the lease by holding loud and boisterous events at the house, as well as conducting activities that require a permit or additional insurance, all in violation of the lease.

Plaintiff does not attach the lease.  Without the lease, the court cannot tell whether or not defendant is even in breach.  Cenat has a bit of a reputation, so it is not like plaintiff thought that the tenant was going to be a recluse.  That said, plaintiff argues that because it knew of Cenat’s reputation, it built a number of restrictions into the lease, including limits on how many people can be on the property as guests or overnight and other things.  Plaintiff also contends that the lease dictates that the property not be used for commercial events.  That may or may not be true, but the lease is not in front of the court.  For purposes of a TRO, the court expects plaintiff to put on its best evidence.  The court will be more lax with regard to evidence that only the defendant might have, but plaintiff ought to have the lease.  Without the lease, the court cannot tell whether commercial activities are truly barred or whether there are other restrictions that are being violated. 

Further, at least some of plaintiff’s evidence suggests that a TRO is unnecessary.  Plaintiff appears to have been willing to allow some or all of the activity now in question in return for higher rent.  That strongly indicates that plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law.  If there is harm, it is economic in nature, not irreparable.

That said, though, plaintiff also suggests that defendant is engaging in activity that is illegal, or at least requires a permit or special insurance.  Plaintiff is well within its rights to insist that defendant not engage in illegal activity on the premises.  Were there a better and more particularized motion, the court would have been inclined to grant a more limited injunction barring defendants from engaging in activity that is either per se illegal or that requires a permit unless defendant obtains the permit, or that requires special insurance unless defendant obtains the insurance.  The use of fireworks or blow torches springs to mind as potential examples.  Similarly, if there are noise ordinances or the like, defendant must comply with them unless defendant has obtained a formal waiver or the like.  But for now, the injunction would be an order that defendant not break the law, and we don’t issue general injunctions like that.

Beyond a breach of contract or damage to the property, or maybe fraud (if the lease is as plaintiff says and defendant was planning this all along), the court does not find plaintiff’s arguments persuasive in terms of a likelihood of success on the merits.  This is not disparagement of title—the fact that defendant calls it “his” house is not the same as actually claiming title ownership.  In a sense, it IS his house during the lease duration.  Telling people the address is not an invasion of privacy.  And this does not seem like interference, and even if it is, the court believes that it is interference unlikely to result in damages.

Plaintiff is welcome to try again, this time appending the lease and pointing out the specific provisions of the lease that are being breached.  Plaintiff will also need to do a better job of showing irreparable harm.  But of course the whole darn lease is over in a couple of weeks anyway (it expires on December 10, 2024).