Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case Number: 23PSCP00412, Date: 2023-11-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCP00412, Date: 2023-11-02 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, counsel are advised to check this website periodically to determine whether any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on a tentative ruling by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 23PSCP00412 Hearing Date: November 2, 2023 Dept: G

Petitioner City of West Covina’s Petition for Order to Abate Substandard Building and Appointment of Receiver

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Petitioner City of West Covina’s Petition for Order to Abate Substandard Building and Appointment of Receiver is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This is an action brought by the City of West Covina (the City) to abate a substandard building and appoint a receiver. The subject of this action is a single-family residence in West Covina that has allegedly fallen into disrepair and out of compliance with numerous state, county, and municipal codes. Starting in July 2020, the City first mailed notices of violation to the West Covina property. After the owners or occupants of the West Covina property failed to remedy the alleged violations, the City continued to send notices of violation until November 2022 when the matter was referred to the City’s prosecutor. In June 2023, the City’s inspector made entrance into the West Covina property pursuant to an inspection warrant and noted additional violations.

On September 14, 2023, the City filed a petition for an order to abate substandard building and appointment of receiver against Respondents Mary A. Packard, Cynthia Calderon, all persons claiming any interest in the West Covina property, and Does 1-25.

On October 2, 2023, the City amended the petition to replace Doe 1 with Linda Jean Packard, as successor trustee of the Trust of Mary A. Packard dated August 29, 1988.

A hearing on the present petition is set for November 2, 2023, with a status conference.

ANALYSIS

The City petitions the court for the appointment of Richardson C. Griswold as receiver. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS the City’s petition.

Legal Standard

In relevant part, Health and Safety Code section 17980.6 provides as follows:

“If any building is maintained in a manner that violates any provisions of this part, the building standards published in the State Building Standards Code relating to the provisions of this part, any other rule or regulation adopted pursuant to the provisions of this part, or any provision in a local ordinance that is similar to a provision in this part, and the violations are so extensive and of such a nature that the health and safety of residents or the public is substantially endangered, the enforcement agency may issue an order or notice to repair or abate pursuant to this part. Any order or notice pursuant to this subdivision shall be provided either by both posting a copy of the order or notice in a conspicuous place on the property and by first-class mail to each affected residential unit, or by posting a copy of the order or notice in a conspicuous place on the property and in a prominent place on each affected residential unit. The order or notice shall include, but is not limited to, all of the following:

(a) The name, address, and telephone number of the agency that issued the notice or order.

(b) The date, time, and location of any public hearing or proceeding concerning the order or notice.

(c) Information that the lessor cannot retaliate against a lessee pursuant to Section 1942.5 of the Civil Code.” (Health & Safety Code, § 17980.6.)

Upon the owner’s failure to comply with a notice or order issued to pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 17980.6 within a “reasonable time,” “The enforcement agency . . . may seek and the court may order, the appointment of a receiver for the substandard building pursuant to this subdivision. In its petition to the court, the enforcement agency . . . shall include proof that notice of the petition was posted in a prominent place on the substandard building and mailed first-class mail to all persons with a recorded interest in the real property upon which the substandard building exists not less than three days prior to filing the petition. The petition shall be served on the owner pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 415.10) of Chapter 4 of Title 5 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.” (Health & Safety Code, § 17980.7, subd. (c).)

The appointment of a receiver lies within the trial court’s discretion. (City of Desert Hot Springs v. Valenti (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 788, 793.) “[B]ecause the remedy of receivership is so drastic in character, ‘[o]rdinarily, if there is any other remedy, less severe in its results, which will adequately protect the rights of the parties, a court should not take property out of the hands of its owners.’ [Citations.]” (Alhambra-Shumway Mines, Inc. (1953) 116 Cal.App.2d 869, 873, quoting Golden State Glass Corp. v. Superior Court (1939) 13 Cal.2d 384, 393.) But in the context of a request for appointment of a receiver pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 17980.7, subdivision (c), the court is not required to consider whether less drastic remedies are available. (See City of Crescent City v. Reddy (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 458, 467.)

Discussion

In this case, the court first considers whether the City gave proper notice as required by statute. On August 22, 2023, the City posted a notice of its intent to file the present petition at the West Covina property and mailed copies of the notice to the West Covina property on the same day. (Pope Ex Parte Decl., ¶ 12, Ex. A.) Because these notices were made more than three days before the petition was filed on September 14, the court finds the City complied with the notice requirements in Health and Safety Code section 17980.7, subdivision (c). The court also finds the City properly served the present petition on the alleged owner, Mary A. Packard, pursuant to the court’s order directing service on October 6.

The court next considers whether Respondents failed to comply with the City’s violation notices within a reasonable period of time. In support of its petition, the City provided a declaration by Matthew Araiza, its code enforcement supervisor. According to Araiza, the City issued the following notices of violation for the West Covina property.

July 7, 2020: Notice of violation issued for damaged roofing, trash cans in the public view, and an inoperable vehicle in the public view. (Araiza Decl., ¶ 10, Ex. A.)

· July 1, 2021: Administrative citation issued for damaged roofing, an inoperable vehicle in the public view, and maintaining a structure in violation. (Araiza Decl., ¶ 12, Ex. A.)

· August 16, 2021: Administrative citation issued for damaged roofing, an inoperable vehicle in the public view, and maintaining a structure in violation. (Araiza Decl., ¶ 12, Ex. A.)

· September 14, 2021: Administrative citation issued for damaged roofing, an inoperable vehicle in the public view, and maintaining a structure in violation. (Araiza Decl., ¶ 12, Ex. A.)

· October 14, 2021: Administrative citation issued for damaged roofing and maintaining a structure in violation. (Araiza Decl., ¶ 12, Ex. A.)

On August 23, 2022, Araiza spoke with Linda Jean Packard over the telephone and Linda Jean Packard promised to remove a tarp covering the West Covina property’s roof by August 30 and also promised to seek financial assistance for the roof repairs. (Araiza Decl., ¶13.) On September 2, Araiza inspected the West Covina property and noted the tarp had been removed. (Araiza Decl., ¶ 15.) But when Araiza conducted another inspection on November 9, Araiza noticed a new tarp had been placed over the roof. (Araiza Decl., ¶ 16.)

On June 27, 2023, Araiza conducted an inspection of the West Covina property pursuant to an inspection warrant. (Araiza Decl., ¶ 20.) During the inspection, Araiza confirmed the roof remained in a deteriorating condition. (Araiza Decl., ¶ 20.) On July 25, the City issued a notice to abate for general dilapidation and improper maintenance, accumulation of junk and debris that creates a fire hazard, damaged roofing, damaged exteriors, a missing supporting column, improper storage of items that creates a fire hazard, missing and broken walls, a hole in the ceiling that exposes ceiling joists, missing floorboards, hazardous and unsanitary kitchen conditions, hazardous and unsanitary bathrooms, presence of animal feces, blocked and inadequate egress, manifestly unsafe building conditions, existence of attractive and public nuisance, and numerous building code violations. (Araiza Decl., ¶ 25; Moy Decl., Ex. 3.)

The notice to abate required the conditions be remedied by August 8, 2023. (Araiza Decl., ¶ 25; Moy Decl., Ex. 3.) At the time Araiza completed the declaration on September 12, there has been no action to remedy the issues noted in the notice to abate. (Araiza Decl., ¶ 25.) While Respondents only had fourteen days to remedy the issues in the notice to abate, the court finds this time was reasonable as Respondents were on notice of issues with the damaged roof since July 2020 and failed to make any repairs. Thus, the court finds Respondents failed to comply with the City’s violation notices in a reasonable time.

Last, the court determines whether Griswold is qualified to be appointed as receiver. An applicant qualifies for appointment as a receiver if they have “demonstrated to the court their capacity and expertise to develop and supervise a viable financial and construction plan for the satisfactory rehabilitation of the building.” (Health & Safety Code, § 17980.7, subd. (c)(2).) In this case, Griswold provided a declaration stating he has sixteen years of experience as a licensed attorney and thirteen years of experience as a licensed real estate broker. (Griswold Decl., ¶ 1.) Griswold has also been appointed as a receiver for more than one hundred eighty properties in more than one hundred civil actions in California. (Griswold Decl., ¶ 2.) Based on these averments, the court finds Griswold is more than qualified to be appointed as a receiver in this action.

Accordingly, the City’s petition is GRANTED.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the City’s petition is GRANTED.