Judge: Michael T. Smyth, Case: 37-2022-00034539-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-05-17 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 16, 2024

05/17/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-67 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Michael T. Smyth

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00034539-CU-BC-CTL LEE VS EASTLAKE II COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendant Eastlake II Community Association's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED.

As an initial matter, Plaintiff correctly notes that the motion was improperly filed prior to Defendant's answer. (ROA 152, Oppo. at 6-7.) Defendant's answer is now on file and it would be entitled to refile its motion for judgment on the pleadings. While the court could require that Defendant refile its motion, the court finds that Plaintiff has had a full and fair opportunity to oppose the motion and will consider the motion on its merits in the interest of judicial economy.

A motion for judgment on the pleadings is equivalent to a demurrer. (Burnett v. Chimney Sweep (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1064.) All properly pleaded, material facts are deemed true, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law; judicially noticeable matters may be considered. (See Kapsimallis v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 667, 672.) Civil Code section 4751 governs accessory dwelling unites ('ADUs') and renders 'void and unenforceable' any 'covenant, restriction, or condition . . . that either effectively prohibits or unreasonably restricts the construction or use of an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit on a lot zoned for single-family use[.]' (Civ. Code, § 4751(a).) The statute also states that it does not prevent 'reasonable restrictions' 'that do not unreasonably increase the cost to construct, effectively prohibit the construction of, or extinguish the ability to otherwise construct, an accessory dwelling unit[.]' (Id., § 4751(b).) Defendant argues that its motion should be granted because on the face of her complaint, Plaintiff states that the HOA Board unanimously approved her ADU (FAC ¶ 139), did not interfere with the construction process (id., ¶ 22) and the ADU was approved for occupancy (id., ¶ 141). Defendant argues that Plaintiff's complaint amounts to a diminution in property value for the other alleged violations of the HOA's governing documents related to: (1) the color of the stucco of Plaintiff's dwelling and common area wall; (2) Plaintiff's driveway extensions that were constructed when utility extensions were put in to connect to the ADU; (3) artificial turf; and (4) her security lights.

But the FAC also states that while the Architectural Committee unanimously approved the ADU project, Plaintiff received notice on June 16, 2022, after the ADU had been constructed, that the HOA had no intention of approving her ADU project. (FAC ¶ 143.) She has also alleged that the purported violations are 'directly related to or inextricably part of the ADU project.' (Id., ¶ 145.) The elements complained of by the HOA were allegedly all part of her initial Home Improvement Application that contemplated the ADU. (Id. ¶ 42.) Then later, after construction was already substantially complete, the HOA claimed that Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3091985  11 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  LEE VS EASTLAKE II COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION [IMAGED]  37-2022-00034539-CU-BC-CTL the project needed to be broken into parts and allegedly attempted to further obstruct the completion of the ADU project. (Id., ¶¶ 44-45.) The allegations are sufficient on their face for a violation of Civil Code section 4751 since the HOA's actions arguably restricted to some degree the construction of the ADU, even if it was eventually built, and Plaintiff's use of the ADU is allegedly still affected. Moreover, in the event Plaintiff is successful on her claims, it would be an odd result if either (1) a Defendant HOA could avoid liability if they continually took actions to unreasonably restrict an ADU but were ultimately unsuccessful; or (2) a Defendant HOA could saddle a homeowner with plausibly unrelated violations to prevent or restrict the construction or use of an ADU. Whether those scenarios are what actually occurred cannot and should not be decided on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

The motion is denied.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3091985  11