Judge Michael E. Whitaker, Case Number: 24SMCV02848, Date: 2025-02-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 24SMCV02848, Date: 2025-02-25 Tentative Ruling

This case arises from a dispute between Plaintiff Richard France and Defendant Inglewood Crossroads Homeowners Association (“Defendant” or “HOA”) regarding the June 2023 election of the HOA board of directors.

On June 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed suit against the HOA seeking declaratory relief regarding the outcome of that election.

Plaintiff now moves for a preliminary injunction compelling the HOA to honor the official Inspectors of Election Report that certified the five individuals elected to the Board of Directors on June 17, 2023.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 527, subdivision (a), “[a] preliminary injunction may be granted at any time before judgment upon a verified complaint, or upon affidavits if the complaint in the one case, or the affidavits in the other, show satisfactorily that sufficient grounds exist therefor.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 527, subd. (a).) “The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo pending final resolution upon a trial.” (Grothe v. Cortlandt Corp. (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1313, 1316.) The status quo has been defined to mean the last actual peaceable, uncontested status which preceded the pending controversy. (14859 Moorpark Homeowner’s Assn. v. VRT Corp. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1396. 1402.) Preliminary injunctive relief requires the use of competent evidence to create a sufficient factual showing on the grounds for relief. (See, e.g., ReadyLink Healthcare v. Cotton (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016; Ancora-Citronelle Corp. v. Green (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 146, 150.)

The trial court considers two factors in determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction: (1) the likelihood the plaintiff will prevail on the merits of its case at trial, and (2) the interim harm the plaintiff is likely to sustain if the injunction is denied as compared to the harm the defendant is likely to suffer if the court grants a preliminary injunction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 526, subd. (a); Husain v. McDonald’s Corp. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 860, 866-867 (hereafter Husain).) The balancing of harm between the parties “involves consideration of such things as the inadequacy of other remedies, the degree of irreparable harm, and the necessity of preserving the status quo.” (Husain, supra, 205 Cal.App.4th at p. 867.)

“The decision to grant a preliminary injunction rests in the sound discretion of the trial court . . . before the trial court can exercise its discretion the applicant must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to injunctive relief. The applicant must demonstrate a real threat of immediate and irreparable injury.” (Triple A Machine Shop, Inc. v. State of Cal. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 131, 138.) “[A]n injunction is an unusual or extraordinary equitable remedy which will not be granted if the remedy at law (usually damages) will adequately compensate the injured plaintiff,” and the party seeking injunctive relief bears the burden to prove its absence. (Department of Fish & Game v. Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation Dist. (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1554, 1564-1565.)

The governing documents for the HOA are (1) the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (“CC&Rs”); (2) By-Laws; and (3) the Election Operating Rules. (France Decl. ¶¶ 5-8.)

The By-Laws require the HOA to conduct an annual homeowners meeting where the five-member Board of Directors is elected to serve a term of one year. (France Decl. ¶¶ 9, 12.) The By-Laws also define a quorum as more than 50% of the owners, either in person or by proxy, and permits any action to be taken at any regular or special meeting of the Owners upon the affirmative vote of at least 51% of the owners. (France Decl. ¶ 10.)

The Election Rules also require that the Board of Directors be elected by secret ballot at the annual meeting. (France Decl. ¶ 13a.) The Election Rules provide that a quorum for a secret ballot is established by more than 50%. (France Decl. ¶ 13g.) The Election Rules further provide that an independent third party shall serve as inspector of elections. (France Decl. ¶ 13c.) That independent third party may be a member, but not a director, candidate, or related to a director or candidate, or anyone employed under contract to provide services to the HOA (other than inspector of elections). (France Decl. ¶ 13d.) Any report made by the inspector of elections is prima facie evidence of the facts stated in the report. (France Decl. ¶ 13f.) Further, the tabulated election results are to be promptly reported to the board and recorded in the meeting minutes, and the board shall give general notice of the results within 15 days of the election. (France Decl. ¶ 13i.)

For over 20 years, Richard Lee served continuously as a member of the Board of Directors, and he also served as the HOA’s President for many of those years. (France Decl. ¶ 14.) Until June 17, 2023, the incumbent Board of Directors were (1) Richard Lee; (2) Ashley Redix; (3) Lori Campbell; (4) Gregory Hooker; and (5) Alexander Dorsey. (France Decl. ¶¶ 15-16.)

On June 17, 2023, the annual election meeting was held by Inspector of Elections Violet Embry. Plaintiff and the four incumbent directors except for Gregory Hooker were in attendance. (France Decl. ¶ 17.)

On June 21, 2023, the Inspector of Elections submitted the Initial Report to the HOA’s property manager, Benjamin Hyles, indicating 88 ballots had been received, constituting a quorum of members, and listing the results as follows:

Benjamin Hyles questioned the statement that a quorum was met, after which the Inspector of Elections revised the initial report to add language clarifying that one homeowner who did not vote was present in person and three proxies were received and included in the ballot count and submitted a final report. (France Decl. ¶ 19 and Ex. 5.)

The meeting minutes utilized the language of the initial report, as opposed to the updated language of the final report. (France Decl. at ¶ 20 and Ex. 6.) The meeting minutes also failed to record two absentee consents submitted by DeRon Ward and Linda Martin on June 24, 2023. (France Decl. at ¶ 21.)

Incumbent Directors Ashley Redix, Lori Campbell, Alexander Dorsey, and the management company challenged the election on the grounds that there was not a quorum at the annual meeting. (France Decl. at ¶¶ 22-23.)

On June 24, members of the prior board and/or the management company sent an email to all members informing the members that “management” determined the Inspector of Elections had miscalculated the quorum requirement and a quorum of 89 had not been met, potentially voiding the election, and indicating they were investigating. (France Decl. ¶ 25 and Ex. 9.)

On June 26, members of the newly-elected board sent an email to members with the Inspector of Elections final report, notifying the members of the new Board and scheduling their first meeting to elect officers. (France Decl. at ¶ 26 and Ex. 10.)

On June 29, members of the Incumbent Directors sent an email to the members representing that the June 17 election required a quorum of 90, representing 51% of the votes. (France Decl. at ¶ 8 and Ex. 12.)

On June 30, the Inspector of Elections responded to the attorney for the Incumbent Directors, indicating, “Per our conversation, I have agreed to void the election results […] because a quorum was not met.” (France Decl. ¶ 8 and Ex. 13.) Plaintiff’s position is that the Inspector of Elections had no power or authority to void the elections on June 30.

Subsequently, the attorney for the incumbent members and Incumbent Director Richard Lee sent an email to management that the Inspector of Elections voided the June 17 election results and the Incumbent Directors would remain as directors until the next election where a quorum is reached. Incumbent Director Richard Lee sent a conflicting email to the property manager confirming the presence of a quorum at the June 17 meeting and demanding that management acknowledge the new board. An attorney for the newly-elected directors also sent an email demanding that the June 17 election results be recognized. (France Decl. ¶¶ 30-33.)

The current acting board consists of three Incumbent Directors Richard Lee, Lori Campbell, and Gregory Hooker, and two appointed directors Ptosha Storey and Shannon Yu. (France Decl. ¶ 33.)

“The trial courts consider two interrelated questions in deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction: 1) are the plaintiffs likely to suffer greater injury from a denial of the injunction than the defendants are likely to suffer from its grant; and 2) is there a reasonable probability that the plaintiffs will prevail on the merits.” (Robbins v. Superior Court (1985) 38 Cal.3d 199, 206.)

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 526, an injunction may be granted “[w]hen it appears by the complaint or affidavits that the commission or continuance of some act during the litigation would produce waste, or great or irreparable injury, to a party to the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 526, subd. (a)(2).) The threat of irreparable harm must be imminent as opposed to a mere possibility of harm sometime in the future. “An injunction cannot issue in a vacuum based on the proponents’ fears about something that may happen in the future. It must be supported by actual evidence that there is a realistic prospect that the party enjoined intends to engage in the prohibited activity.” (Korean Philadelphia Presbyterian Church v. California Presbytery (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1069, 1084.) Plaintiffs need not wait until they have suffered actual harm before applying for an injunction, however, they may seek injunctive relief against threatened infringement of their rights. (Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1292.)

Moreover, an injunction may be granted only “[w]hen pecuniary compensation would not afford adequate relief.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 526, subd. (a)(4).) “Specific performance of a contract will not be compelled when an adequate remedy exists at law, and if monetary damages afford adequate relief and are not extremely difficult to ascertain, an injunction cannot be granted.” (Thayer Plymouth Center, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Corp. (1967) 255 Cal.App.2d 300, 306.)

Plaintiff contends he will suffer immediate and irreparable harm in the form of (1) unlawful shifting of the burden of proof to Plaintiff; (2) Lawless HOA Governance; (3) construction defect violations; (4) the HOA’s grave financial condition; (5) Insurance Cancellation Risks; (6) Health and Safety Risks; (7) Injurious Communication; and (8) HOA Takeover risks.

As for the first purported immediate and irreparable harm, Plaintiff argues that the Incumbent Directors improperly challenged the Inspector of Elections report directly, instead of filing suit, as required by the Davis-Sterling Act, thereby improperly shifting the burden of proof of validity of the election to Plaintiff. (France Decl. ¶ 35a.) While this constitutes Plaintiff’s theory of wrongdoing, it does not demonstrate any immediate and irreparable harm as a result of that wrongdoing.

Similarly, Plaintiff argues that the HOA is currently being governed in violation of the law, including by the Incumbent Directors’ interference with the June 17 election and failure to record the entirety of the election results in the minutes, refusing to honor recall petitions, improperly appointing new board members following resignations, refusing to honor records requests, governing with undisclosed conflicts of interest, and not holding open board meetings. (France Decl. ¶ 35b.) But the current board is not the same board that allegedly interfered with the June 17 election results, and Plaintiff does not specify which specific members purportedly have undisclosed conflicts of interest, or whether those board members would still serve on the board, were Plaintiff to obtain the injunction sought.

Plaintiff also argues the HOA failed to disclose the extent of construction defects at the property and failed to conduct periodic inspections as mandated by law. (France Decl. ¶ 35c.) Plaintiff further argues there was a lack of internal control and governance for the fiscal year ending 8/31/2021, the reserve funds were low as of November 2021, and there has been a decline in cash from October 2022 through August 2024. (France Decl. ¶ 35d.)

But most of this conduct was done by a prior version of the board, and Plaintiff does not specify whether the decline in funds represents misconduct, or how the funds would not be depleted, should the Court grant the requested injunction. Further, the depletion of funds represents a mere pecuniary harm, for which an injunction is an inappropriate remedy.

Plaintiff further argues that the deteriorated condition of the building poses a risk that the insurance will be canceled, and poses risks to the residents. (France Decl. ¶35e-f.) Plaintiff argues this puts the HOA at risk of being put in a receivership, of being privately acquired, or of eminent domain/condemnation proceedings, even though the City of Inglewood declined to exercise eminent domain in March 2023. (France Decl. ¶ 35h.) But Plaintiff does not demonstrate how these pose an imminent risk of harm, as opposed to merely a possible, theoretical future harm.

Finally, Plaintiff argues that Incumbent Director Lori Campbell has spoken disrespectfully to and about Plaintiff. (France Decl. ¶ 35g.) But if the election results are honored, Lori Campbell will still be a board member. Further, it is unclear what irreparable harm Plaintiff has suffered by these comments, or how that harm will be cured by the relief Plaintiff has requested.

Therefore, Plaintiff has not demonstrated any immediate and irreparable harm to substantiate the preliminary injunction requested.[1]

Therefore, having found no showing of immediate or irreparable harm, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

Further, on the Court’s own motion, the Court sets an Order to Show Cause why the Court should not strike the HOA’s Answer filed on February 11, 2025, under Code of Civil Procedure sections 435 and 436, absent leave of Court. The Order to Show Cause shall be set for hearing on May 22, 2025 at 8:30 A.M. in Department 207. Any opposition to the Order to Show Cause shall be filed no later than 9 court days before the scheduled hearing.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file the notice with a proof of service forthwith.

[1] Because Plaintiff has not demonstrated any immediate and irreparable harm, the Court does not analyze the probability of success on the merits prong.

DEPARTMENT	207
HEARING DATE	February 25, 2025
CASE NUMBER	24SMCV02848
MOTION	Motion for a Preliminary Injunction
MOVING PARTY	Plaintiff Richard France
OPPOSING PARTY	none