Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2021-00050363-CU-WM-CTL, Date: 2024-03-29 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - March 28, 2024

03/29/2024  09:01:00 AM  C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Writ of Mandate Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2021-00050363-CU-WM-CTL HARTER VS RANCHO RIOS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Respondent Rancho Rios Homeowners Association's demurrer to the petition for peremptory writ in the first instance is SUSTAINED.

Respondent's request for judicial notice of the court records in an earlier case Petitioner David Harter filed in this court, Harter v. Rancho Rios Homeowners Association (37-2019-00022444-CU-WM-CTL), is granted.

A demurrer shall be sustained if the complaint 'does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10(e).) To test the sufficiency of a cause of action, the court treats as true 'all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.' (Centinela Freeman Emergency Medical Associates v. Health Net of California, Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 994, 1010.) The court may also consider matters that have been judicially noticed. (Id.) The court shall give the complaint a 'reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context.' (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) Respondent first argues Petitioner cannot seek ordinary mandamus relief (as set forth in the petition) because he has a 'plain, speedy, adequate remedy, in the course of law.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 1086.) The court disagrees.

Here, the petition seeks to direct Respondent to 'honor Petitioner's October 18, 2021 inspection demand to inspect and copy all of RRHOA's corporate records as permitted under Civil Code section 5200 et seq for (1) FY 2019, (2) FY 2020, (3) FY 2021 and (4) all minutes from 1972 to the present.' (ROA #1, Petition, p. 10.) Petitioner also seeks a $500 civil penalty award and an award of attorney fees and costs. (Petition, p. 11.) According to Respondent, Civil Code sections 4955 and 5235 establish the appropriate process by which an association member, like Petitioner, may seek the relief sought here.

Pursuant to section 4955, a 'member of an association may bring a civil action for declaratory or equitable relief for a violation of this article by the association, including, but not limited to, injunctive relief, restitution, or a combination thereof, within one year of the date the cause of action accrues.' However, section 4955 specifies the action is only for violation of 'this article' (Article 2), and the alleged violations that ground Petitioner's request for relief do not arise from Article 2. And although section 5235 does apply to Petitioners claim, it states only that a member may 'bring an action,' and an 'action' can include a petition for mandamus relief. (Civ. Code, § 5235, subd. (a).) Respondent next argues Petitioner has not alleged facts sufficient to establish it either failed to, or unreasonably withheld, documents properly requested by Petitioner. The court agrees.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3107503  25 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  HARTER VS RANCHO RIOS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION  37-2021-00050363-CU-WM-CTL According to the petition, Respondent's 'Annual Policy Statement' in its October 22, 2021 annual report for FY2022 names Jack Kuta as the 'Person Designated to receive Official Communications on behalf of the Association.' (Petition, p. 5, ¶ 9.) 'If a provision of this act requires that a document be delivered to an association, the document shall be delivered to the person designated in the annual policy statement, prepared pursuant to Section 5310, to receive documents on behalf of the association.' (Civ. Code, § 4035, subd. (a).) Instead of sending a written request for Respondent's corporate records to Mr. Kuta, Petitioner alleges he unilaterally sent his requests to each of Respondent's directors. (Petition, p. 8, ¶ 14.) But in order for Petitioner to trigger a duty on the part of Respondent to produce requested documents, he needed to 'submit[] a written request directly to the association for copies of specifically identified records,' (Civ. Code, § 5205, subd. (e)), unless the association does not have a business office within the development and the member and association cannot agree upon a place for inspection. (Civ. Code, § 5205, subds. (d), (e).) In considering the various provisions of the Civil Code applicable to an association's duty to produce corporate documents, the court concludes the language 'submits a written request directly to the association' is a trigger for Civil Code section 4035. It would make little sense to broadly apply the term 'association' to include any director, employee, or other agent of the association, particularly when a specific code section effectively captures the situation presented by Petitioner's claim here. As such, Petitioner has failed to allege facts that establish Respondent had a duty to respond to his October 18, 2021 document requests.

In opposition, Petitioner argues (consistent with the allegations in his petition) that Mr. Kuta was improperly appointed, and therefore Petitioner was excused from sending the requests to him. However, even if this claim had merit, the petition does not seek such relief, and the time for Petitioner to bring a claim under Article 2 has passed. (Civ. Code, § 4955, subd. (a).) Petitioner also argues Respondent's board unlawfully delegated authority to Mr. Kuta to receive document requests. But this argument ignores Corporations Code section 7210, which permits an association's board of directors to 'delegate the management of the activities of the corporation to any person or persons, management company, or committee however composed, provided that the activities and affairs of the corporation shall be managed and all corporate powers shall be exercised under the ultimate direction of the board.' The court is also unpersuaded by Petitioner's extensive arguments regarding alter ego and conspiracy, none of which address the issues described above.

Accordingly, Respondent's demurrer is sustained. The court will hear from the parties regarding whether Petitioner should have leave to amend.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3107503  25