Judge: Richard S. Whitney, Case: 37-2021-00021672-CU-MC-CTL, Date: 2024-03-29 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - March 28, 2024

03/29/2024  10:30:00 AM  C-68 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Richard S. Whitney

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Misc Complaints - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2021-00021672-CU-MC-CTL THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS GOLDEN [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING: RECEIVER'S MOTION FOR DISCHARGE OF RECEIVER AND EXONERATION OF SURETY is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.

Richardson Griswold, the court-appointed Receiver ('Receiver'), requests discharge and exoneration of the surety after increasing the lien on the subject property to $132,783.51. Defendant LISA GOLDEN ('Defendant') opposes the motion. Plaintiff City of San Diego ('Plaintiff') also opposes the motion as to discharge. The parties' requests for judicial notice are granted.

A receiver is discharged on motion by the receiver or by stipulation of the parties, after giving the court a final account and report. (Cal. R. Court, rule 3.1184(a).) The receiver shall be discharged upon rendering a full and complete accounting to the court when the condition has been removed and the cost thereof and all other costs authorized by this section have been paid, reimbursed, or made subject to a lien pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 17980.2, or any combination of these. Upon the removal of the condition, the owner, the mortgagee, or any lienor may apply for the discharge of the receiver of all moneys not expended by the receiver for removal of the condition and all other costs authorized by this section.

(Health & Saf. Code, § 17980.3(d).) 'Code of Civil Procedure 568 and section 17980.7 allow for the payment of a receiver's remediation fees and costs on a super-priority basis under appropriate circumstances....' (County of Sonoma v. Quail (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 657, 687.) 'As a general proposition the costs of a receivership are primarily a charge upon the property in the receiver's possession and are to be paid out of said property.' (Id. at 682 [Citation and quotes omitted].) Any receiver appointed pursuant to this section shall have all of the following powers and duties in the order of priority listed in this paragraph, unless the court otherwise permits: ...

To borrow funds to pay for repairs necessary to correct the conditions cited in the notice of violation and to borrow funds to pay for any relocation benefits authorized by paragraph (6) and, with court approval, secure that debt and any moneys owed to the receiver for services performed pursuant to this section with a lien on the real property upon which the substandard building is located. The lien shall be recorded in the county recorder's office in the county within which the building is located.

...

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3089263  59 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS GOLDEN [IMAGED]  37-2021-00021672-CU-MC-CTL Upon the request of a receiver, a court may require the owner of the property to pay all unrecovered costs associated with the receivership in addition to any other remedy authorized by law.

(Health & Saf. Code, § 17980.7(c)(4).) The court has power to make an allowance for payment of the fee of the receiver's attorney. The allowance is not directly to the attorney; it is to the receiver to enable the latter to pay for the attorney's professional services. The fees for such services constitute a lien against the estate, which lien has priority over a mortgage on the property.

(55 Cal. Jur. 3d Receivers § 87; Scarpa v. Scarpa (1919) 40 Cal.App. 345; Sullivan v. Gage (1905) 145 Cal. 759 overruled on other grounds by Metropolitan Water Dist. of Southern Cal. v. Marquardt (1963) 59 Cal.2d 159.) 'A receiver is not liable in his individual capacity as a tort-feasor for any act within the scope of his duties as receiver and done under an express order of court which is not in excess of jurisdiction, the liability incurred being chargeable upon the property.' (Chiesur v. Superior Court in and for Los Angeles County (1946) 76 Cal.App.2d 198, 202 [Citation omitted].) '[T]he cost of defending against an unfounded challenge to a receiver's account is regarded as a necessary expense incurred in the course of his official duties for which he is entitled to reimbursement out of the estate.' (People v. Riverside University (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 572, 587.) Judicial and quasi-judicial immunity that applies to receivers 'applies with equal force to these neutral persons who attempt to resolve disputes.' (Howard v. Drapkin (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 843, 858–859.) Judicial immunity is overcome in only two sets of circumstances: (1) nonjudicial actions, i.e., actions not taken in the judge's judicial capacity and (2) 'actions, though judicial in nature, taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.' (Soliz v. Williams (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 577, 592.) A receiver stealing assets or slandered parties are not considered judicial acts which are immune.

(Id.) The Court finds Defendant has not demonstrated that Receiver is not protected by judicial immunity.

Defendant also fails to demonstrate the lien should not be increased. Plaintiff does not oppose the increase in the lien but opposes the discharge of Receiver. Plaintiff has provided evidence that numerous violations of the San Diego Municipal Code, California Health and Safety Code, and California Residential Code exist on the property as of March 18, 2024. Among other declarants, Justin Welker, a building inspector, declares (and provides photographic evidence) he was personally present during the inspection on March 18, 2024, and that he observed the following violations: San Diego Municipal Code sections 54.0208 (failure to maintain property free of waste); 121.0302(b)(4) (maintaining a public nuisance); 142.1110 (storage of items not incidental to residential use); 142.0510 (a) and (b) (parking non-operational vehicles in required off-street parking and failing to keep required off-street parking free of temporary and permanent obstructions); California Health and Safety Code sections 17920.3(a)(3) (failure to maintain kitchen sink); 17920.3(a)(12) (infestation of insects, rodents, or vermin); 17920.3(a)(14) (general dilapidation and improper maintenance); 17920.3(c) (any nuisance); 17920.3(j) (failure to maintain dwelling and premises free of an accumulation of weeds, vegetation, junk, dead organic matter, debris, garbage, offal, rodent harborages, stagnant water, combustible materials, and similar materials or conditions constitute fire, health, or safety hazards); 17920.3(l) (excessive accumulation of storage blocks required path of travel and emergency egress); and California Residential Code section R311 (lack of adequate emergency egress) Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3089263  59 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS GOLDEN [IMAGED]  37-2021-00021672-CU-MC-CTL (Decl. Welker.) The Court finds Defendant has not provided adequate, credible, competent, and admissible evidence to contradict Mr. Welker's declaration (nor the other declarations). The Court finds the Receiver may not be discharged at this time as all the offending conditions have not been removed. However, the Court grants Receiver's request to increase the lien amount such that the lien total is now $132,783.51.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3089263  59