Judge Melvin D. Sandvig, Case 22CHCV00710 2023-01-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 22CHCV00710, Date: 2023-01-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV00710 Hearing Date: January 6, 2023 Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 1/6/23

Case #22CHCV00710

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Motion filed on 12/8/22.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff The People of the State of California

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Rosalinda Orozco, an individual and trustee of the Sergio and Rosalinda Orozco Living Trust

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: A preliminary injunction to abate a public nuisance on real property commonly known as 16557 Bircher Street, Granada Hills, California 91344, parcel number 2610-025-010.

RULING: The unopposed motion is granted.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This action arises out of the condition of real property located at 16557 Bircher Street, Granada Hills, California 91344, parcel number 2610-025-010 (the Property) which is, and has been, owned by Defendant Rosalinda Orozco, an individual and trustee of the Sergio and Rosalinda Orozco Living Trust (Defendant) since at least 2004. (See Request for Judicial Notice (RJN) Ex.1). The property consists of a single-story home, an attached garage, a driveway, a backyard, front yard and side yard. (RJN, Ex.4).

Beginning in early 2018, excessive trash, debris, and inoperable vehicles began accumulating at the Property. Between June 2018 and June 2022, Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety (LA DBS) inspectors have inspected the Property at least twenty-three times, each time observing increasing storage and accumulation of trash, debris, and inoperable vehicles on or near the Property in violation of the Los Angeles Municipal Code which resulted in the issuance of written notices of violations and administrative citations to Defendant and her son, Defendant Roberto Orozco (who is in default in this action). (See Declarations of LA DBS inspectors Flores, Dovico, Melvin, Peniche, Badossian and Gold and attached exhibits; 10/13/22 Request for Entry of Default). Despite repeated orders to remove trash, debris, etc. from the Property, Defendant failed to comply and actually accumulated more items. (Gold Decl. ¶6). As a result, LA DBS referred the matter to the Los Angeles City attorney for criminal prosecution. (Badossian Decl. ¶6).

Defendant has been convicted of misdemeanor violations of the Los Angeles Code for maintaining excessive trash, debris and inoperable vehicles on her properties. (See RJN, Ex.2-3). Despite the criminal convictions, Defendant continues to maintain a public nuisance on the Property.

In September 2020, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (LAC DPH) began inspecting the Property in response to complaints of excessive, trash, debris, inoperable vehicles, and rodent and vermin infestations. (Hu Decl. ¶7). LAC DPH inspectors inspected the Property at least six times and observed excessive storage and accumulation of trash, debris and inoperable vehicles on or near the property which resulted in the issuance of multiple written notices to Defendant regarding her repeated violations of multiple Los Angeles County Code sections. (See Declarations of LAC DPH inspectors Gomez, Jamil, Hu and attached exhibits).

In March of 2021, the condition of the Property became the subject of several news stories. (Decl. of CBS Custodian of Records, Ex.A). In response, on 3/27/21, the City of Los Angeles spent $12,000 of public funds to remove 21,000 pounds of trash and debris from the property. (Claypool Decl. ¶7). Within weeks, trash and debris, again, began accumulating on the Property within weeks. (Id. at ¶¶9-10; Gold Decl. ¶8).

In addition to the foregoing, since March 2018, the Los Angeles Police Department has received at least 66 calls and has generated 5 incident reports concerning disturbances and criminal activity at the Property. (Decl. of LAPD Officer Sellers ¶¶8-12, Ex.A, B, D; Claypool Decl. ¶22, Ex.N). Also, since 2018, neighbors of the Property have observed constant disruptive activity on the Property by Defendant, her son (defaulted Defendant Roberto Orozco) and the individuals they attract and/or invite to the Property. (See Declarations of D. Wurangian; Eric; Gharib, L. Claypool III, Blatter, Bauroth, M. Claypool, Meldonian and attached exhibits).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On 8/30/22 Plaintiffs The People of the State of California; County of Los Angeles and Muntu Davis, M.D., M.P.H., in his capacity as Health Officer for Los Angeles County filed this action against Defendants for injunctive and other equitable relief to abate a public nuisance. On 10/3/22, Defendant, representing herself, filed an answer to the complaint. On 10/13/22, default was entered against Defendant Roberto Orozco.

On 12/8/22, Plaintiff The People of the State of California (Plaintiff) filed and served the instant motion seeking a preliminary injunction to abate a public nuisance on real property commonly known as 16557 Bircher Street, Granada Hills, California 91344, parcel number 2610-025-010. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks an order restraining Defendant and her agents, representatives, guests, co-owners, co-trustees, lessees, co-occupants, visitors, invitees, servants, employees, and all others acting in concert with, aiding and/or abetting, and/or participating with them, from:

(1) Accumulating excessive trash, debris, and/or inoperable vehicles on the Property, including in violation of Los Angeles Municipal Code sections 12.21A.1.(a), 12.21A.8.(b), 12.03, 12.21A.1.(a), 12.21C.1(g), 91.8104, 91.8104.2, and 91.103.1, and Los Angeles County Code sections 11.16.020, 11.16.030, 11.16.050, 11.16.060, 11.20.140, and 11.20.170.

(2) Making, causing, or encouraging others to make unnecessary, excessive, or annoying noise of any kind, including but not limited to talking loudly, yelling, playing loud music, operating loud machinery, moving heavy objects, at a noise level higher that is either unreasonable to a person of ordinary senses, or more than 45 decibels during the time interval of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., and 50 decibels during the time interval of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.

(3) Trespassing or encouraging others to trespass on any private property, vandalizing or encouraging others to vandalize private property, and/or damaging or encouraging others to damage private property on Bircher Street between Armstead Street and Gothic Avenue, on Armstead Street between Bircher Street and Gothic Avenue, and on Gothic Avenue between Armstead Street and Bircher Street.

(4) Loitering on the sidewalk, street, or in vehicles in front of the Property and on Bircher Street between Armstead Street and Gothic Avenue, on Armstead Street between Bircher Street and Gothic Avenue, and on Gothic Avenue between Armstead Street and Bircher Street.

(5) Urinating or defecating in any public place or place open to public view.

(6) Blocking or otherwise obstructing, including but not limited to by vehicle, person, or trash and debris, the free ingress and egress to the public sidewalks or street, or any driveways leading or appurtenant thereto on Bircher Street.

(7) Approaching vehicles, blocking vehicles, or doing anything to obstruct or delay the free flow of vehicular or pedestrian traffic.

(8) In any manner confronting, intimidating, annoying, harassing, threatening, challenging, provoking, damaging personal property of, or assaulting and/or battering any residents, patrons, or visitors to Bircher Street, or any other persons who are known to have complained about Defendant's public nuisance, including any persons who have provided information in support of Plaintiff's Complaint and requests for Preliminary Injunction.

(9) Littering in any public place or place open to public view.

(10) Drinking alcoholic beverages, smoking cigarettes, or using controlled substances, as defined in Health and Safety Code sections 11053, et seq., in the sidewalk, parkway, or street, excepting consumption on lawfully licensed premises.

(11) Causing, encouraging, participating in the use, possession and/or sale of controlled substance, as defined in Health and Safety Code sections 11053, et seq.

Defendant has not opposed or otherwise responded to the motion.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice (RJN) is granted.

A trial court may issue a preliminary injunction any time before judgment is entered based upon declarations and other evidence that establish sufficient grounds for such relief. See CCP 527(a). In determining whether a preliminary injunction should issue, the Court must consider two interrelated factors: (1) the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits at trial; and (2) the interim harm the plaintiff is likely to suffer if the injunction does not issue as compared with the harm the defendant will likely to if the preliminary injunction is issued. Shoemaker (1995) 37 CA4th 618, 624-625.

A nuisance is defined as “[a]nything which is injurious to health, including, but not limited to, the illegal sale of controlled substances, or is indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, or unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use, in the customary manner, of any navigable like, or river, bay stream, canal, or basin, or any public park, square, street, or highway.” Civil Code 3479.

A public nuisance is defined as “one which affects at the same time an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal.” Civil Code 3480.

CCP 731 provides that:

“An action may be brought by any person whose property is injuriously affected, or whose personal enjoyment is lessened by a nuisance, as defined in Section 3479 of the Civil Code, and by the judgment in that action the nuisance may be enjoined or abated as well as damages recovered therefor. A civil action may be brought in the name of the people of the State of California to abate a public nuisance, as defined in Section 3480 of the Civil Code, by the district attorney or county counsel of any county in which the nuisance exists, or by the city attorney of any town or city in which the nuisance exists. Each of those officers shall have concurrent right to bring an action for a public nuisance existing within a town or city. The district attorney, county counsel, or city attorney of any county or city in which the nuisance exists shall bring an action whenever directed by the board of supervisors of the county, or whenever directed by the legislative authority of the town or city."

The unrefuted evidence noted above in the “Summary of Facts” establishes that Plaintiff is likely to prevail on the merits of the claims set forth in the complaint as Defendant has continually maintained and/or allowed to be maintained a public nuisance at the Property for at least the past four years, despite the issuance of citations and criminal convictions for same.

The Court finds that Plaintiff, through the neighbors of the Property and the general public in the vicinity of the Property, suffer on a daily basis as a result of Defendant’s conduct in relation to the Property. In contrast, the Court finds that Defendant will suffer no harm (and would likely benefit) if the requested relief is granted.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the motion is granted.