Judge Michelle Williams Court, Case Number: 23STCV20094, Date: 2024-06-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 23STCV20094, Date: 2024-06-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV20094 Hearing Date: June 20, 2024 Dept: 1

23STCV20094 ALDEA COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION vs PORTER RANCH DEVELOPMENT CO

Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Judicial Reference Pursuant to C.C.P. §§ 638 and 640-645.1

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is CONTINUED for the parties to provide the following supplemental information:

- “The name and telephone number of a person for any member of the public to contact in order to attend a proceeding that would be open to the public if held in a courthouse.” (LASC Local Rules, rule 2.24(b));

- Judge Sundvold’s certification and consent to serve. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.901(b)(4); and

- A proposed order that includes the matters specified in California Rules of Court, rule 3.902. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.901(b)(5).)

Counsel for Plaintiff to give notice.

Background

On August 22, 2023, Aldea Community Association filed this action against Porter Ranch Development Co., Shapell Industries, Inc., and Liberty Building Company asserting causes of action for: (1) violation of building standards; (2) negligence; (3) strict liability; (4) breach of fiduciary duty; and (5) violation of governing documents.

On September 1, 2023, the court issued an order staying the case, except for service of the summons and complaint. On October 26, 2023, the court partially lifted the say to allow leave to file motions.

Motion

On April 22, 2024, the parties filed the instant joint motion for judicial reference covering all issues.

The joint motion is unopposed.

Judicial Notice

The parties request the Court take judicial notice of the Amended and Restated Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions and Reservation of Easements for Aldea at Porter Ranch, recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office on November 10, 2008 as Document No. 2008-1984762. The request is GRANTED. (Evid. Code § 452(c); Eisen v. Tavangarian (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 626, 642 n.12 (granting judicial notice of recorded CC&Rs); River’s Side at Washington Square Homeowners Association v. Superior Court of Yolo County (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 1209, 1220 n.3 (same).)

Motion for Judicial Reference

Standard

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 638(a), “[a] referee may be appointed upon the agreement of the parties filed with the clerk, or judge, or entered in the minutes, or upon the motion of a party to a written contract or lease that provides that any controversy arising therefrom shall be heard by a referee if the court finds a reference agreement exists between the parties: (a) To hear and determine any or all of the issues in an action or proceeding, whether of fact or of law, and to report a statement of decision.”

“Judicial reference involves sending a pending trial court action to a referee for hearing, determination and a report back to the court. A general reference directs the referee to try all issues in the action. The hearing is conducted under the rules of evidence applicable to judicial proceedings. In a general reference, the referee prepares a statement of decision that stands as the decision of the court and is reviewable as if the court had rendered it. The primary effect of such a reference is to require trial by a referee and not by a court or jury.” (O'Donoghue v. Superior Court (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 245, 255 (quotations and citations omitted).) While judicial references differ significantly from arbitrations, courts draw on cases related to arbitration in assessing judicial reference agreements. (Id. at 250.)

“In any matter in which a referee is appointed pursuant to this section, a copy of the order shall be forwarded to the office of the presiding judge.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 638(b).)

“The stipulation or motion for the appointment of a referee under section 638 must: (1) Clearly state whether the scope of the requested reference includes all issues or is limited to specified issues; (2) State whether the referee will be privately compensated; (3) If authorization to use court facilities or court personnel is requested, describe the use requested and state the reasons that this would further the interests of justice; (4) If the applicant is requesting or the parties have stipulated to the appointment of a particular referee, be accompanied by the proposed referee's certification as required by rule 3.904(a); and (5) Be accompanied by a proposed order that includes the matters specified in rule 3.902.” (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.901(b).)

Pursuant to Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rules, rule 2.24(a)(2), “[t]he Supervising Judge of the Civil or Family Law Division appoint a referee who will hear the case for all purposes, including judgment.” “A written agreement for an order directing a reference is subject to the court’s approval, and the court may, in its discretion, refuse to approve the reference.” (LASC Local Rules, rule 2.24(m).)

The Motion is Continued to Allow an Opportunity to Address Procedural Deficiencies

The parties agree the Amended and Restated Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions and Reservation of Easements for Aldea at Porter Ranch (“CC&Rs”) mandates a judicial reference of their dispute. Section 12.13.2(vi) of the CC&R’s for Plaintiff provides:

(iv) Judicial Reference. If the parties to a Dispute are unable to resolve the Dispute pursuant to the procedures described in Subsections 12.13.2(ii)1 or 12.13.2(iii)2 , the Dispute shall be resolved by general judicial reference pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 638 and 641 through 645.1. Subject to the limitations set forth below in this Subsection, the judicial referee (“Referee”) shall have the authority to and shall try all issues, whether of fact or of law, including without limitation the validity, scope and enforceability of this Subsection and shall prepare and report a written statement of decision and judgment to the court. The Referee shall be the only trier of fact or law in the reference proceeding and shall have no authority to further refer any issues of fact or law to any other party without the mutual consent of all parties to the judicial reference proceeding.

(Ralidis Decl. Ex. B.)

The parties also agree the provision is enforceable. (See also Woodside Homes of Cal., Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 723, 727 (“a binding judicial reference is substantially similar to nonjudicial arbitration, and a similar approach is therefore justified in evaluating the enforceability of the provisions.”).) The parties seek a reference for all purposes. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.901(b)(1).)

The parties have stipulated to appoint Steven J. Sundvold (Ret.) of JAMS as the judicial referee for all purposes. (Ralidis Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. A ¶ 8. See Code Civ. Proc. § 640(a) (“The court shall appoint as referee or referees the person or persons, not exceeding three, agreed upon by the parties.”).) The parties’ stipulation includes an agreement on the referee’s payment. (Ralidis Decl. Ex. A; LASC Local Rules, rule 3.9(a); Code Civ. Proc. § 645.1(a); Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.901(b)(2).)

However, the parties failed to provide the required certification from Judge Sundvold. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.901(b)(4), “[t]he stipulation or motion for the appointment of a referee under section 638 must: . . . If the applicant is requesting or the parties have stipulated to the appointment of a particular referee, be accompanied by the proposed referee’s certification as required by rule 3.904(a).” Rule 3.904(a) provides: “[b]efore a referee begins to serve: (1) The referee must certify in writing that he or she consents to serve as provided in the order of appointment and is aware of and will comply with applicable provisions of canon 6 of the Code of Judicial Ethics and with the California Rules of Court; and (2) The referee's certification must be filed with the court.” Accordingly, the parties must file the certification prior to the continued hearing date.

“All proceedings before a temporary judge or referee must be open to the public, with no restriction on attendance that would not be applicable if the proceedings were held in a courthouse. The . . . agreement for a reference must set forth the name and telephone number of a person for any member of the public to contact in order to attend a proceeding that would be open to the public if held in a courthouse.” (LASC Local Rules, rule 2.24(b).) The parties’ initial stipulations, (Ralidis Decl. Ex. A), failed to include this information and the parties did not correct this omission in their motion. The parties must provide the name and telephone number of the appropriate contact person prior to the continued hearing date. (LASC Local Rules, rule 2.24(b) (“A notice containing such name and address shall be posted by the clerk as required by California Rules of Court, rules 2.831 and 3.900 et seq.”).)

The parties also failed to submit a proposed order as required. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.901(b)(5) (“The stipulation or motion for the appointment of a referee under section 638 must: . . . [b]e accompanied by a proposed order that includes the matters specified in rule 3.902.”).) The parties must submit a proposed order prior to the continued hearing date.