Judge Olivia Rosales, Case 22NWCV00369 2022-12-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 22NWCV00369, Date: 2022-12-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00369 Hearing Date: December 14, 2022 Dept: SEC

OUTLOOK RESOURCES, INC. v. CROWN CASTLE USA INC., et al.

CASE NO.: 22NWCV00369

HEARING: 12/14/22 @ 1:30 PM

JUDGE: OLIVIA ROSALES

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Outlook Resources, Inc.’s motion for preliminary injunction is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Plaintiff Outlook Resources, Inc. moves for a preliminary injunction to enjoin Defendants Global Signal Acquisitions II LLC and STC One LLC from trespassing on plaintiff's property.

In deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction, a trial court weighs two interrelated factors: the likelihood the moving party ultimately will prevail on the merits, and the relative interim harm to the parties from the issuance or nonissuance of the injunction. A trial court may not grant a preliminary injunction, regardless of the balance of interim harm, unless there is some possibility that the plaintiff would ultimately prevail on the merits of the claim. (Hunt v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal. 4th 984, 999-1000.) Proof of facts is ordinarily made by affidavits or declarations. (CCP § 2009.)

The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff “owns an industrial warehouse located at 14930 Alondra Blvd., La Mirada, CA 90638… Outlook Resources employs hundreds of employees and has a large parking lot for its employees to park and to conduct its business. The Property has signs that clearly indicate that the Property is private property and that unauthorized people should not be utilizing the Property.” (Complaint, ¶ 16.) “A tower that Defendant owns and which it leases to T-Mobile… is located on the lot that is next to the Property.” (Id., ¶ 17.) “The Tower is and should be accessible from the street, which is a public right of way. However, Defendants have been accessing the Tower by and through the Property and its parking lot.” (Id., ¶ 18.) “Defendants began accessing the Tower through the Property several years ago. Not only did Defendants access the Tower through the Property but they brought trucks and heavy equipment onto the Property and obstructed Outlook Resources’ business. Outlook Resources immediately got in touch with Crown Castle and demanded that the equipment be removed and the technicians be required to access the Tower from the street.” (Id., ¶ 19.) “Defendants complied with this request for a short time but beginning in October 2021, Defendants began to trespass on the Property again. Defendants not only trespassed on the Property but also broke locks on the gates restricting access to the Property in order to bring equipment onto the Property to use in maintaining the Tower and have broken into trucks located on the Property. Despite several notices to Crown Castle, Defendants continued to trespass on the Property.” (Id., ¶ 20.) Based thereon, the Complaint asserts causes of action for:

1. Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

2. Trespass

Plaintiff submits San Kim’s declaration, attesting that “Defendants own a Cell Tower on an adjacent property which is accessible by the main street that runs alongside the Cell Tower. Despite the Cell Tower being accessible by the street, Defendants and their contractors have trespassed on the Property numerous times. Defendants and their contractors have been repeatedly warned not to trespass on the Property but the trespassing still occurs to this day.” (Kim, Decl., ¶ 3.) “On October 23, 2021, Defendants broke into the Property around 5am by breaking the locks on the gate that secured the Property. Defendants broke the lock and entered onto the Property, and used the Property’s parking lot to access the Cell Tower. Defendants were immediately notified to cease and desist, to which Defendants asserted that they would tell their contractors to not use the Property.” (Id., ¶ 4.) “On October 27, 2021, Defendants again trespassed on the Property during the day, taking up valuable parking spots and using the Property without Plaintiff’s permission to access the Cell Tower, despite Defendants having expressly been told that Defendants were not allowed to use the Property for any reason, especially not to gain access to the Cell Tower. Plaintiff again notified Defendants on this day that they were to immediately cease and desist from trespassing on the Property.” (Id., ¶ 5.) “Defendants again trespassed on the Property on November 24, 2021 to access the Cell Tower, and Defendants were again notified to cease and desist from trespassing on the Property.” (Id., ¶ 6.) “[O]n April 25, 2022, Defendants again trespassed on the Property and dropped off porta potties on the Property. When Defendants were confronted and Plaintiff demanded that Defendants take the porta potties off of the Property, Defendants refused and escalated the situation. Defendants also trespassed on the Property on September 28, 2022.” (Id., ¶ 8.)

In opposition, Defendants contend that in order to access the Facility from Alondra Boulevard (Stoner Decl., ¶ 10), there is no room for Defendants to park their vehicles or drive through this access point to get to the Facility (Id. ¶ 11). In order to access its Facility, Defendants must apply for a permit to block traffic and leave their vehicles parked in the right-hand lanes of the street. (Id. ¶ 12.) The Facility at issue provides critical infrastructure and wireless communication services to nearby homes, businesses and schools. (Id. ¶ 15.) If it is rendered inoperable, the local cellular network will be disrupted which will negatively impact connectivity and potentially the use of emergency services in this area. (Id. ¶ 16.) Defendants are willing to compensate Outlook a reasonable amount for an easement for any future use. (Id. ¶¶ 7-8, 18.)

The court finds Plaintiff has established likely success on the merits. Defendants admit that they have been using Plaintiff’s property to access the Towers. Defendants also admit that it has other alternatives, such as applying for a permit to safely conduct their maintenance work or negotiating an easement from Plaintiff. Instead, despite repeated requests by Plaintiff, Defendants are “helping themselves” to an easement they do not own. Further, because real property is unique, Plaintiff has demonstrated irreparable harm.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. Defendants Global Signal Acquisitions II LLC and STC One LLC are prohibited and enjoined from trespassing on and causing damage to Plaintiff’s property located at 14930 Alondra Blvd., La Mirada, CA 90638.