Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV02734, Date: 2025-03-05 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).


Case Number: 23CHCV02734    Hearing Date: March 5, 2025    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 3/5/25                                                              TRIAL DATE: 9/29/25

Case #23CHCV02734

 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

 

Motion filed on 10/7/24.

 

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Rivervillage Neighborhood Association

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Anthony Hill

 

RELIEF REQUESTED: A preliminary and permanent injunction and order instructing Defendant Anthony  Hill to restore the unauthorized balcony to the property located at 22351 Windriver Court, Santa Clarita, California 91350 to its original condition, and to comply with the tree requirements in the rear yard of the Property as set forth in Plaintiff’s Community Design Guidelines.

 

RULING: The motion is placed off calendar.

 

This action arises out of Plaintiff Rivervillage Neighborhood Association’s (Plaintiff) claim that Defendant Anthony Hill (Defendant) the owner of real property located at 22351 Windriver Court, Santa Clarita, California 91350 (the Property) which is located within the community governed by Plaintiff has violated Plaintiff’s governing documents with certain construction activities on the Property including adding a balcony, replacing windows, pushing back the year yard and adding two slider doors to the balcony, without obtaining prior approval from Plaintiff’s Design Review Committee as required by Article VII of the CC&Rs. 

 

On 9/12/23, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant for: (1) Breach of CC&Rs and Declaratory Relief.  On 12/4/23, representing himself, Defendant answered the complaint.  On 10/7/24, Plaintiff filed the instant motion seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction and order instructing Defendant to restore the unauthorized balcony to the property located at 22351 Windriver Court, Santa Clarita, California 91350 to its original condition, and to comply with the tree requirements in the rear yard of the Property as set forth in Plaintiff’s Community Design Guidelines.

 

The proofs of service attached to the moving papers indicate the papers were served on Defendant on 10/7/24 by electronic service, only. 

 

With regard to electronic service of documents on an unrepresented party such as Defendant, CCP 1010.6 provides, in relevant part:

 

“(c)(1) This subdivision applies to electronic service by consent of an unrepresented person in a civil action.

(2) An unrepresented party may consent to receive electronic service.

(3) Express consent to electronic service may be given by either of the following:

(i) Serving a notice on all parties and filing the notice with the court.

(ii) Manifesting affirmative consent through electronic means with the court or the court's electronic filing service provider, and concurrently providing the party's electronic address with that consent for the purpose of receiving electronic service. The act of electronic filing shall not be construed as express consent.

(4) A person who has provided express consent to accept service electronically may withdraw consent at any time by completing and filing with the court the appropriate Judicial Council form.

(5) Consent, or the withdrawal of consent, to receive electronic service may only be completed by a person entitled to service.”

 

Here, there is no evidence that Defendant has consented to electronic service in this action and there is no opposition or other response to the motion by Defendant to cure the defect in notice.  Therefore, the matter is placed off calendar.