Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 20CHCV00648, Date: 2023-02-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20CHCV00648    Hearing Date: February 17, 2023    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 2/17/23                                                TRIAL DATE: 7/10/23

Case #20CHCV00648

 

SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

 

Motion filed on 11/9/22.

 

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Alex Alvarado and Patricia Alvarado

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants Michael Meadows and Althea Meadows

NOTICE: ok

 

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order granting summary adjudication of the following issues: (1) The Meadows have a duty to abide by the CC&Rs; (2) The Meadows have a duty to not operate a commercial business from their property; (3) The Meadows have a duty not to engage in any noxious or offensive activity that may be or become an unreasonable annoyance or nuisance to any other owner.  Plaintiffs also seek summary adjudication of their 1st cause of action for Breach of Governing Documents and each of the Meadows’ affirmative defenses (1st – 26th affirmative defenses).

 

RULING: Plaintiffs’ request for summary adjudication of Issues of Duty 1, 2 and 3 is granted.  The motion is otherwise denied.    

 

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 

This action arises out of disputes between neighbors.  Plaintiffs Alex Alvarado and Patricia Alvarado (Plaintiffs) and Defendants Michael Meadows and Althea Meadows (the Meadows/Defendants) own neighboring properties in a common interest development managed by Defendant Ridgeview Saugus Homeowners Association and governed by a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs).  Plaintiffs claim that in violation of the governing documents the Defendants: (1) destroyed a shared wall (Complaint ¶¶23-29, 50); (2) are running a pool cleaning business from their property (Complaint ¶¶30, 32-33, 50); (3) are peeping into Plaintiffs’ daughter’s vehicle and taking photos of her (Complaint ¶¶36, 50); (4) are flooding the Plaintiffs’ property causing property damage (Complaint ¶57); (5) are making sexually inappropriate comments about Mrs. Alvarado (Complaint ¶57); and (6) are attempting to intimidate Plaintiffs (Complaint ¶57).  On 10/22/20, Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendants and the HOA for: (1) Breach of Governing Documents, (2) Nuisance, (3) Continuing Trespass, (4) Intentional Interference With Economic Relations, (5) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, (6) Negligence and (7) Declaratory Relief. 

 

On 2/3/21, this Court issued a preliminary injunction “limiting Defendants’ use of sprinklers in their front yard (if applicable) and back yard to six minutes a day (six minutes for the front yard and six minutes for the back yard/three minutes in the morning and three minutes in the evening).”  (See 2/3/21 Minute Order, p.2).  On 2/23/22, this Court found Defendants to be in contempt of the 2/3/21 Minute Order.  (See 2/23/22 Minute Order). 

 

On 11/9/22, Plaintiffs filed and served the instant motion seeking an order granting summary adjudication of the following issues: (1) The Meadows have a duty to abide by the CC&Rs; (2) The Meadows have a duty to not operate a commercial business from their property; (3) The Meadows have a duty not to engage in any noxious or offensive activity that may be or become an unreasonable annoyance or nuisance to any other owner.  Plaintiffs also seek summary adjudication of their 1st cause of action for Breach of Governing Documents and each of the Meadows’ affirmative defenses (1st – 26th affirmative defenses).  Defendants have opposed the motion and Plaintiffs have filed a reply to the opposition. 

 

ANALYSIS

 

Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice is granted.  With regard to Exhibits 1, 2, 5 and 6 in the Request for Judicial Notice, the Court takes judicial notice of the existence of the recorded documents and the existence of the declarations in the Court file but not the truth of the facts asserted therein. 

 

Defendants’ objection to the reply is overruled.  The evidence submitted with the reply merely responds to arguments made in the opposition.

 

Plaintiffs fail to clearly set forth the issues sought to be adjudicated by this motion.  In the notice of motion, Plaintiffs set forth three issues of duty they seek to have adjudicated.  (See Notice of Motion, p.1:28-p.2:5).  Without identifying them as “issues” to be adjudicated, Plaintiffs then state that Defendants have no defense to their cause of action for breach of governing documents and that each of Defendants’ 1st through 26th affirmative defenses have not merit.  (See Notice of Motion, p.2:6-p.4:4; CRC 3.1350(b), (h)).  As such, it appears that Plaintiffs are actually requesting that the Court summarily adjudicate 30 issues.  Further, confusing matters, in their memorandum of points and authorities, Plaintiffs set forth what appear to be five issues they seek to have adjudicated: “(1) Whether the Meadows have a duty to abide by the CC&Rs;

(2) Whether the Meadows have a duty not to operate a commercial business from their home;

(3) Whether the Meadows have a duty to not engage in any noxious or offensive activity, or any activity that may be or become an unreasonable annoyance or nuisance; (4) Whether the contempt charge means that the Alvarados are entitled to summary adjudication as to their ‘Breach of Governing Documents’ cause of action; (5) Whether the Meadows’ affirmative defenses are without merit.”  (See Motion, p.8:13-19).   

 

CCP 437c(f) provides in relevant part:

 

(1) A party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one or more issues of duty, if the party contends that the cause of action has no merit, that there is no affirmative defense to the cause of action, that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to any cause of action, that there is no merit to a claim for damages, as specified in Section 3294 of the Civil Code, or that one or more defendants either owed or did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or plaintiffs. A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.

(2) A motion for summary adjudication may be made by itself or as an alternative to a motion for summary judgment and shall proceed in all procedural respects as a motion for summary judgment. . . . 

 

With regard to motions for summary judgment and summary adjudication, CCP 437c(p) provides in relevant part:

 

(1) A plaintiff or cross-complainant has met his or her burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if that party has proved each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on the cause of action. Once the plaintiff or cross-complainant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the defendant or cross-defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto. The defendant or cross-defendant shall not rely upon the allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.

 

In their opposition to the motion, Defendants do not dispute that pursuant to the governing documents of the homeowners’ association they have: (1) a duty to abide by the CC&Rs; (2) a duty to not operate a commercial business from their property; and (3) a duty not to engage in any noxious or offensive activity that may be or become an unreasonable annoyance or nuisance to any other owner.  (See Opposition, generally; Defendants’ Separate Statement 1-18).  Rather, Defendants contend that a triable issue of material fact exists as to whether Defendants breached such duties; if Defendants’ did breach such duties, whether such breaches caused damage to Plaintiffs and if Defendants’ breached such duties and caused damages to Plaintiff, in what amount.  (See Opposition). 

 

As such, the Court grants the motion as to Issues of Duty 1, 2 and 3 finding that Defendants have (1) a duty to abide by the CC&Rs and pursuant to the duty to abide by the CC&Rs, Defendants have (2) a duty to not operate a commercial business from their property; and (3) a duty not to engage in any noxious or offensive activity that may be or become an unreasonable annoyance or nuisance to any other owner.   

 

In the motion, Plaintiffs argue that they sued the Defendants for flooding their home.  (See Motion, p.9:6-11).  Plaintiffs conclude that because the Court has found Defendants guilty of contempt for violating the preliminary injunction issued by this Court, Plaintiffs have established the elements of their 1st cause of action for breach of governing documents.  (See Motion, p.14:25-p.15:4).  Plaintiffs ignore the fact that they sued Defendants for much more than flooding their property.  As noted above, the Complaint alleges that Defendants (1) destroyed a shared wall (Complaint ¶¶23-29, 50); (2) are running a pool cleaning business from their property (Complaint ¶¶30, 32-33, 50); (3) are peeping into Plaintiffs’ daughters vehicle and taking photos of her (Complaint ¶36, 50); (4) are flooding the Plaintiffs’ property causing property (Complaint ¶57); (5) making sexually inappropriate comments about Mrs. Alvarado (Complaint ¶57); and (6) attempting to intimidate Plaintiffs (Complaint ¶57).  It is not clear if Plaintiffs are abandoning their other allegations of breach in this action.

 

Even if Plaintiffs are abandoning their other allegations of breach, they have still failed to establish that Defendants breached the governing documents.  In issuing the preliminary injunction in this case, contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertion, this Court made no finding that Defendants breached the governing documents.  Rather, to maintain the status quo, this Court merely ordered Defendants’ to limit the time they watered their front and back yards.  (See   2/3/21 Minute Order).  In finding Defendants’ in contempt of that order, this Court merely found that Defendants were watering their yards for longer periods of time than ordered by the Court,  not that Defendants were breaching the governing documents.  (See 2/23/22 Minute Order). 

 

Additionally, the Court finds Plaintiffs’ argument that they need only establish the elements of duty and breach in order to have their cause of action for breach of governing documents adjudicated in their favor to be without merit.  (See Reply, p.5:5-8, p.6:17-p.9:1).  In their 1st cause of action for breach of governing documents, Plaintiffs allege that they have suffered damages exceeding $25,000 as a result of Defendants’ (specifically, Mr. Meadows’) conduct.   (Complaint ¶¶55, 58).  As such, Plaintiffs have made damages an element of their cause of action for breach of governing documents.  Even if Plaintiffs had established that Defendants’ breached the governing documents, which as noted above they have not, Plaintiffs have failed to address the damages they claim in relation to this cause of action.  As such, the adjudication Plaintiff’s seek of this cause of action would not entirely dispose of the cause of action as required.  See CCP 437c(f)(1), (p)(1). 

 

Plaintiffs have also failed to establish that Defendants cannot establish any of their affirmative defenses.  Contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertion, in response to Form Interrogatory 15.1, Defendants did not admit that they had no evidence in support of their affirmative defenses.  (See Motion, p.15:11-12).  Defendants’ first responded to Form Interrogatory 15.1 with objections and further responded with facts to support their affirmative defenses.  (See Separate Statement 25-102).  Additionally, Defendants indicate that they are in the process of obtaining additional discovery to support their affirmative defenses.  (See Yoakum Decl.).

 

CONCLUSION

 

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to summary adjudication of the three issues of duty set forth in their motion.  Otherwise, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to establish that they are entitled to summary adjudication of their 1st cause of action for breach of governing documents or that any of Defendants’ affirmative defenses have no merit.  

 

 

 

 

 Dept. F47

Date: 2/17/23                                                TRIAL DATE: 7/10/23

Case #20CHCV00648

 

SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

 

Motion filed on 11/9/22.

 

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Alex Alvarado and Patricia Alvarado

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Ridgeview Saugus Homeowners Association

NOTICE: ok

 

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order granting summary adjudication in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant Ridgeview Saugus Homeowners Association on the following issue of duty: The HOA owed and continues to owe Plaintiffs a duty to fairly enforce the governing documents.  Plaintiffs also seek summary adjudication of each of the HOA’s affirmative defenses (1st – 12th affirmative defenses).

 

RULING: The motion is denied. 

 

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 

This action arises out of disputes between neighbors.  Plaintiffs Alex Alvarado and Patricia Alvarado (Plaintiffs) and Defendants Michael Meadows and Althea Meadows (the Meadows) own neighboring properties in a common interest development managed by Defendant Ridgeview Saugus Homeowners Association (the HOA) and governed by a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs).  Plaintiffs claim that in violation of the governing documents the Meadows: (1) destroyed a shared wall (Complaint ¶¶23-29, 50); (2) are running a pool cleaning business from their property (Complaint ¶¶30, 32-33, 50); (3) are peeping into Plaintiffs’ daughter’s vehicle and taking photos of her (Complaint ¶¶36, 50); (4) are flooding the Plaintiffs’ property causing property damage (Complaint ¶57); (5) are making sexually inappropriate comments about Mrs. Alvarado (Complaint ¶57); and (6) are attempting to intimidate Plaintiffs (Complaint ¶57).  On 10/22/20, Plaintiffs filed this action against the Meadows and the HOA for: (1) Breach of Governing Documents (against the Meadows and the HOA), (2) Nuisance (against the Meadows and the HOA), (3) Continuing Trespass (against the Meadows), (4) Intentional Interference With Economic Relations (the Meadows), (5) Breach of Fiduciary Duty (against the HOA), (6) Negligence (against the HOA and the Meadows) and

(7) Declaratory Relief (complaint does not specify against whom this cause of action is alleged). 

 

On 11/9/22, Plaintiffs filed and served the instant motion seeking an order granting summary adjudication in favor of Plaintiffs and against the HOA on the following Issue of Duty No.1: The HOA owed and continues to owe Plaintiffs a duty to fairly enforce the governing documents.  Plaintiffs also seek summary adjudication of each of the HOA’s affirmative defenses (1st – 12th affirmative defenses).  Defendants have opposed the motion and Plaintiffs have filed a reply to the opposition. 

 

ANALYSIS

 

Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice is denied for the reasons stated in the HOA’s evidentiary objections numbers 1 and 2.  In turn, the HOA’s evidentiary objections numbers 1 and 2 are granted.

 

Plaintiffs fail to clearly set forth the issues sought to be adjudicated by this motion.  In the notice of motion, Plaintiffs set forth one of duty they seek to have adjudicated.  (See Notice of Motion, p.1:27-28).  Without identifying them as “issues” to be adjudicated, Plaintiffs then state that each of the HOA’s 1st through 12th affirmative defenses have not merit.  (See Notice of Motion, p.2:1-p.3:1; CRC 3.1350(b), (h)).  As such, it appears that Plaintiffs are actually requesting that the Court summarily adjudicate 13 issues.  Further, confusing matters, in their memorandum of points and authorities in support of the motion and their reply, Plaintiffs seem to be making a motion to strike as to the HOA’s affirmative defenses.  (See Motion, p.7:12-14 whereat Plaintiffs state that the Court should “strike all of the HOA’s affirmative defenses;” Reply p.6:16).   

 

CCP 437c(f) provides in relevant part:

 

(1) A party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one or more issues of duty, if the party contends that the cause of action has no merit, that there is no affirmative defense to the cause of action, that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to any cause of action, that there is no merit to a claim for damages, as specified in Section 3294 of the Civil Code, or that one or more defendants either owed or did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or plaintiffs. A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.

(2) A motion for summary adjudication may be made by itself or as an alternative to a motion for summary judgment and shall proceed in all procedural respects as a motion for summary judgment. . . . 

 

With regard to motions for summary judgment and summary adjudication, CCP 437c(p) provides in relevant part:

 

(1) A plaintiff or cross-complainant has met his or her burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if that party has proved each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on the cause of action. Once the plaintiff or cross-complainant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the defendant or cross-defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto. The defendant or cross-defendant shall not rely upon the allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.

 

In their opposition to the motion, the HOA does not dispute that it, as a homeowners association, owes a duty to its members to enforce the governing documents.  (See Opposition, p.4:12-13).  However, this is not the issue Plaintiffs seek to have adjudicated in their favor.  Rather, in their notice of motion and separate statement, Plaintiffs seek a finding that “[t]he HOA owed and continues to owe Plaintiffs [specifically] a duty to fairly enforce the governing documents.”  (See Notice of Motion, p.1:27-28; Separate Statement, p.2:3-4).  Confusing matters, in their memorandum of points and authorities, Plaintiffs shift between stating they seek “to adjudicate the issue of whether the HOA has a duty to fairly enforce its governing documents” with whether the HOA merely has “a duty to enforce its governing documents.”  (See Motion, p.8:7, p.8:8-9, p.8:11, p.8:23-24, p.8:26; p.9:20-21, p.9:22-23, p.11:20-21, p.16:28-2).  Further, confusing the issue, in the reply, Plaintiffs argue that homeowners associations, like the HOA, owe fiduciary duties to their members to enforce their governing documents.  (See Reply, p.6:19-20).  In this motion, Plaintiffs have not sought to adjudicate whether the HOA owes a fiduciary duty to them or any other of its members.    

 

Further, it has been held that the decision in Lamden (1991) 21 C4th 249, 253 (regarding courts deferring to an association’s authority regarding obligations to maintain and repair a development’s common areas):

 

“also reasonably stands for the proposition that the Association had discretion to select among means for remedying violations of the

CC & R's without resorting to expensive and time-consuming litigation, and the courts should defer to that discretion. Before Lamden, the Supreme Court explained that ‘[g]enerally, courts will uphold decisions made by the governing board of an owners association so long as they represent good faith efforts to further the purposes of the common interest development, are consistent with the development's governing documents, and comply with public policy.’”

 

Haley (2007) 153 CA4th 863, 873-875.

 

The Court declines to make a finding that the HOA owed and continues to owe a specific duty to Plaintiffs to fairly enforce the governing documents as such a finding leaves open to subjective interpretation what “fair” enforcement of the governing documents as to Plaintiffs means.  Here, contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertion that the HOA “doesn’t do anything about” the Meadows alleged violations of the governing documents, the HOA has provided evidence that it has made efforts to enforce its governing documents regarding Plaintiffs’ complaints about the Meadows in this case.  (See Motion, p.7:7-8; the HOA’s Additional Facts 34-58).  

 

Plaintiffs have also failed to establish that the HOA cannot establish any of its affirmative defenses.  First, contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertion, in response to Form Interrogatory 15.1, the HOA did not admit that it had no evidence in support of its affirmative defenses.  (See Motion, p.11:28-p.12:1).  In the motion, Plaintiffs rely solely on the HOA’s response to Form Interrogatory 15.1 while ignoring the HOA’s other discovery responses and production of documents.

 

The HOA’s responses to discovery and production, along with the evidence presented in opposition to this motion, show that the HOA issued multiple letters to the Meadows regarding violating the governing documents, held multiple meetings/hearings regarding the Meadows’ violations and imposed thousands of dollars in fines against the Meadows.  (See the HOA’s Additional Facts 29, 36, 38-42, 44-60).  The evidence provided by the HOA in opposition to the instant motion does not contradict earlier discovery responses from the HOA. 

 

Additionally, in the motion, Plaintiffs’ only argument with regard to the HOA’s affirmative defenses is that the HOA purportedly has no facts to support the affirmative defenses.  (See Motion, p.11:22-p.16:26).  In the reply, Plaintiffs improperly raise the new argument that the HOA’s affirmative defenses are not legally cognizable or applicable.  (See Reply, p.8:23-27, p.9:9-p.13:13).  The HOA had no opportunity to respond to this new argument.  Also, as noted above, the HOA has presented evidence which creates triable issues of material fact regarding the merit of its affirmative defenses.   

 

CONCLUSION

 

Based on the foregoing, the motion is denied in its entirety.