Judge: Robert C. Longstreth, Case: 37-2022-00043125-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-03-22 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - March 21, 2024

03/22/2024  08:30:00 AM  C-65 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Robert Longstreth

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00043125-CU-BC-CTL DEAN VS ACQUA VISTA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, 10/09/2023

Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiff's First, Third, and Fourth Causes of Action in the First Amended Complaint (ROA 41) is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART without leave to amend.

Defendant's requests for judicial notice of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and of the June 23, 2023 Grant Deed are both granted. (Evid. Code § 452(c) and (d)(1).) Per the Grant Deed, Plaintiff is no longer the owner of the subject condominium unit within the common interest development governed by Defendant. Accordingly, Defendant asserts Plaintiff lacks standing to continue to assert his first, third, and fourth causes of action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 438(c)(1)(B)(ii) and (c)(2)(A).) Plaintiff's first cause of action is for Breach of Governing Documents under Civil Code section 5975.

Within this cause of action, Plaintiff prays for declaratory relief (FAC ¶ 42) and attorney fees per statute (FAC ¶ 43.) Per Code, unless the declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions ('CC&Rs') state otherwise, the CC&Rs 'may be enforced by any owner of a separate interest or by the association, or both.' (Civ. Code § 5975(a).) Further, '[a] governing document other than the declaration may be enforced by the association against an owner of a separate interest or by an owner of a separate interest against the association.' (Id. at subd. (b), emphasis added.) The subject CC&Rs mirror this statutory requirement. (FAC at Exh. 1.) Finally, case law states '[o]ne who no longer owns land in a development subject to reciprocal restrictions cannot enforce them, absent showing the original covenanting parties intended to allow enforcement by one who is not a landowner.' (Farber v. Bay View Terrace Homeowners Assn. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1007, 1011.) Plaintiff did not make such a showing in his opposition, nor does he provide any authority suggesting that he may bring this claim.

As Plaintiff is no longer an owner of any separate interest, he no longer has standing to seek to enforce the CC&Rs. Put another way, there is no longer any active controversy between Plaintiff and Defendant that would support Plaintiff's prayer for declaratory relief or attorney fees under the statute. (Civ. Code § 5975.) Plaintiff's fourth cause of action for Declaratory Relief fails for the same reason. It is apparent there is no longer any active controversy between the parties for which Plaintiff would be entitled to a judicial declaration because Plaintiff is no longer the owner of any interest in the development.

Accordingly, as to Plaintiff's first and fourth causes of action, the motion is granted without leave to Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3041549  11 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  DEAN VS ACQUA VISTA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION  37-2022-00043125-CU-BC-CTL amend. It does not appear Plaintiff is able to cure the defect by amendment since he no longer has an ownership interest in the subject property. Moreover, although Plaintiff asserts in his opposition that he 'could' seek monetary damages under his first cause of action, this is not alleged in the first cause of action and Plaintiff cites no statute or other legal authority to support his position that he may seek monetary damages for violation of Civil Code section 5975.

Plaintiff's third cause of action is for Failure to Permit Inspection of Records. As to this cause of action, the motion is denied. The Code provides for an award of a civil penalty, attorney fees, and costs '[i]f a court finds that the association unreasonably withheld access to the association records.) (Civ. Code § 5235.) To the extent Plaintiff was a member at the time a demand was made, Defendant's cited legal authorities would not support a conclusion that Plaintiff lacks standing to seek civil penalties for any alleged past violations, and reasonable attorney fees and costs if he is successful.

Once confirmed, this ruling shall be the final ruling of the court and no further written order is required.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3041549  11