Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case Number: 23PSCV03490, Date: 2025-02-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCV03490, Date: 2025-02-20 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: 23PSCV03490 Hearing Date: February 20, 2025 Dept: G

Plaintiff Arcadia Vista Homeowners Association’s Motion for Preliminary and Temporary Injunction

Respondent: Defendant Michael James Henderson

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Arcadia Vista Homeowners Association’s Motion for Preliminary and Temporary Injunction is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This is an action arising from a dispute between a homeowner and a homeowners association. Plaintiff Arcadia Vista Homeowners Association (Arcadia Vista HOA) is the operator and manager of a planned development at intersection of Peck Road and Rio Hondo Parkway in El Monte. Defendant Michael James Henderson is the owner of real property located within the development. In February 2023, the Arcadia Vista HOA alleges they received complaints concerning a rodent infestation at Henderson’s property. Upon inspection by their pest control company, the Arcadia Vista HOA determined the source of the infestation was Henderson’s alleged lack of maintenance. As a solution, their roofing contractor recommended installation of roof caps to prevent the entry of rodents. On March 7, 2023, the Arcadia Vista HOA held a hearing to address Henderson’s alleged violations of their Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and imposed a fine of $100.00 on Henderson after Henderson allegedly failed to appear.

On March 12, 2023, the Arcadia Vista HOA alleges they sent Henderson a written notice requesting Henderson properly maintain Henderson’s property. They also requested Henderson provide access to the property for a pest inspection and roof cap installation. On March 22, 2023, the Arcadia Vista HOA allegedly held another hearing to address Henderson’s alleged violations of their CC&Rs and imposed a fine of $150.00. On April 12, 2023, the Arcadia Vista HOA alleges they sent Henderson a written notice repeating their previous requests. They also requested Henderson trim a large overgrown tree on Henderson’s property. On April 26, 2023, the Arcadia Vista HOA allegedly held another hearing to address Henderson’s alleged violations of their CC&Rs and imposed a fine of $150.00. Although the Arcadia Vista HOA repeated this process in May and had their counsel send two letters to Henderson, they allege Henderson has yet to comply with their requests.

On November 9, 2023, the Arcadia Vista HOA filed a complaint against Henderson and Does 1-10, alleging the following causes of action: (1) injunctive relief, (2) abatement of nuisance, and (3) declaratory relief.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Arcadia Vista HOA’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (c).

ANALYSIS

The Arcadia Vista HOA seeks a preliminary injunction ordering Henderson to provide Arcadia Vista HOA and their vendors access to Henderson’s property in order for them to engage in pest control, install roof caps, and to trim a large overgrown tree. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS their motion.

Legal Standard

“[A] court will deny a preliminary injunction unless there is a reasonable probability that the plaintiff will be successful on the merits, but the granting of a preliminary injunction does not amount to an adjudication of the merits.” (Beehan v. Lido Isle Community Assn. (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 858, 866.) “The function of a preliminary injunction is the preservation of the status quo until a final determination of the merits.” (Ibid.)

In evaluating a party’s request for a preliminary injunction, courts consider “(1) how likely it is that the moving party will prevail on the merits, and (2) the relative harm the parties will suffer in the interim due to the issuance or nonissuance of the injunction.” (Dodge, Warren & Peters Ins. Services, Inc. v. Riley (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1414, 1420.) “[T]he greater the . . . showing on one, the less must be shown on the other to support an injunction.” (Ibid, quoting Butt v. State of California (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668, 678.) The balancing of harm between the parties also “involves consideration of such things as the inadequacy of other remedies, the degree of irreparable harm, and the necessity of preserving the status quo.” (Husain v. McDonald’s Corp. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 860, 867, quoting Abrams v. St. John’s Hospital & health Center (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 628, 636.) The burden of proof is on the plaintiff as the moving party “to show all elements necessary to support issuance of a preliminary injunction.” (O’Connell v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1481.)

Discussion

As an initial matter, Henderson raises procedural objections to the present motion. Henderson claims the present motion is defective because the notice of motion lists the wrong address for the court. (Opp., p. 2:12-20.) Henderson’s counsel also claims counsel never received copies of Arcadia Vista HOA’s request for judicial notice and supporting declarations. (Opp., p. 2:22-3:1.) With regards to the first issue, the court finds Henderson has waived any objection to technical deficiencies in the motion’s notice by filing an opposition that addresses the merits. (See Carlton v. Quint (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 844, 697-698.) As to the second issue, each of Arcadia Vista HOA’s moving papers include a sworn proof of service showing Henderson was served by mail. Notwithstanding the claims in Henderson’s opposition, Henderson fails to provide any sworn statement contradicting these proofs of service. Thus, the court finds this objection fails.

Likelihood of Prevailing on the Merits

Arcadia Vista HOA argues it has a likelihood of prevailing on each of its causes of action against Henderson. The first cause of action for injunctive relief and third cause of action for declaratory relief seek to stop and prevent Henderson’s alleged breach of Arcadia Vista HOA’s CC&Rs. Civil Code section 5975, subdivision (a) allows associations to enforce their declaration of covenants and restrictions as equitable servitudes against individual owners unless stated otherwise by the declaration.

In this case, section 3.3 of the CC&Rs states as follows:

“Maintenance, Each owner of a condominium shall be responsible for maintaining his unit, including the equipment and fixtures in the unit and its interior walls, ceilings, windows, and floors, in a clean and sanitary, workable, and attractive condition. However, each owner has complete discretion as to the choice of furniture, furnishings, and interior decorating, but windows can be covered only by drapes, or shades and cannot be painted or covered by foil, cardboard, or other similar materials. Each owner shall be responsible for repair, replacement and cleaning of the windows and glass of his unit, both interior and exterior. Unless otherwise provided in this Declaration, each owner shall clean and maintain exclusive easements appurtenant to any of the units over the Common Area.” (RJN, Ex. 2, § 3.3.)

Section 2.2.4 of the CC&Rs gives Arcadia Vista HOA and its agents the “[t]he right . . . to enter any unit as necessary in connection with construction, maintenance or emergency repair for the benefit of the Common Area or the owners in common. The right shall be immediate in case of an emergency originating in, or threatening, such unit; otherwise, entry shall be made only after reasonable notice is given to the occupant of the unit.” Furthermore, the failure to comply with these CC&Rs “shall give rise to a cause of action in the Association and any aggrieved owner for the recovery of damages or for injunctive relief, or both.” (RJN, Ex. 2, § 3.14.)

Here, Arcadia Vista HOA argues Henderson has breached the CC&Rs by failing to maintain Henderson’s property in a clean and sanitary condition. (Motion, p 10:2-3.) In support, Arcadia Vista HOA provides a declaration from Roman Esparza who purportedly serves as a property manager for the Arcadia Vista HOA. Esparza states that in February 2023, the Arcadia Vista HOA “received reports that trash was collecting in [Henderson]’s garage, resulting in rodents infiltrating [Henderson]’s and neighboring units, causing damage to the units.” (Esparza Decl., ¶ 10.) Esparza then states that Arcadia Vista HOA’s pest control company determined “the source of the rodent infestation was [Henderson]’s lack of maintenance and failure to keep his Unit in a neat, clean, organized, and sanitary condition.” (Esparza Decl., ¶ 11; Index of Exhibits (Index), Ex. 4.) The pest control company “recommended a rodent preventative proofing service.” (Esparza Decl., ¶ 11.) Arcadia Vista HOA’s roofing contractor also recommended the installation of roof caps to prevent the entry of rodents and “advised that it would need to access [Henderson]’s patio to install the roof caps.” (Esparza Decl., ¶ 12.)

Arcadia Vista HOA also argues Henderson interfered with their obligations to maintain and repair the Common Area by failing to provide them with access to the property. (Motion, p. 8:16-18, 10:3-5.) On March 7, 2023, Esparza states Henderson “was called to a hearing” by the Arcadia Vista HOA to address Henderson’s alleged violations of the CC&Rs and failed to appear. (Esparza Decl., ¶ 13.) On March 12, 2023, Arcadia Vista HOA sent a letter to Henderson that requested Henderson’s compliance, sought access to Henderson’s property for the purposes of installing roof caps and conducting a pest inspection, and notified Henderson of a new hearing date on March 22, 2023. (Esparza Decl., ¶ 14; Index, Ex. 5.) While Esparza does not state if Henderson appeared at the March 22 hearing, Esparza does state the Arcadia Vista HOA imposed another fine of $150.00 on Henderson for Henderson’s alleged lack of compliance. (Esparza Decl., ¶ 15.)

On April 12, 2023, Arcadia Vista HOA sent another letter to Henderson that repeated their previous requests. (Esparza Decl., ¶ 16; Index, Ex. 7.) Although the letter acknowledges that Henderson made some attempts to clean and organize the property, it stated the efforts were insufficient and requested that Henderson also trim an overgrown tree that was touching the property’s roof and chimney. (Index, Ex. 7.) Last, the letter set another hearing date of April 26, 2023. (Index, Ex. 7.) Although Esparza does not state if Henderson appeared for the April 26 hearing, Esparza does state the Arcadia Vista HOA imposed another fine on Henderson for Henderson’s alleged noncompliance. (Esparza Decl., ¶ 18.) On May 12, 2023, Arcadia Vista HOA sent another letter to Henderson that repeated their previous requests and set a hearing date for May 24, 2023. (Esparza Decl., ¶ 19; Index, Ex. 8.) Esparza was again silent on whether Henderson attended the May 24 hearing but states Arcadia Vista HOA imposed another fine for Henderson’s alleged noncompliance. (Esparza Decl., ¶ 20.)

In opposition, Henderson argues Arcadia Vista HOA cannot establish a likelihood of prevailing on the merits because they failed to exhaust administrative remedies. (Opp., p. 5:19-6:15.) But while Henderson cites Civil Code section 1369.520, this code section has been repealed since 2014. Instead, it appears Henderson meant to cite Civil Code section 5930, subdivision (a), which states “[a]n association or a member may not file an enforcement action in the superior court unless the parties have endeavored to submit their dispute to alternative dispute resolution pursuant to this article.”

But “[t]his section applies only to an enforcement action that is solely for declaratory, injunctive, or writ relief, or for that relief in conjunction with a claim for monetary damages not in excess of the jurisdictional limits stated in Sections 116.220 and 116.221 of the Code of Civil Procedure.” (Civ. Code, § 5930, subd. (b).) Furthermore, as noted by Arcadia Vista HOA in their reply, there is an exception to this requirement when preliminary or temporary injunctive relief is necessary. (Civ. Code, § 5950, subd. (a)(3).) Here, the Complaint includes a certificate of compliance stating the Complaint adequately alleges facts to support a request for preliminary injunctive relief. (Complaint, Ex. A.) Thus, Arcadia Vista HOA’s alleged failure to exhaust remedies by first pursuing alternative dispute resolution does not prevent them from establishing a likelihood of prevailing on the merits.

Henderson next argues injunctive relief is inappropriate because injunctions are not permitted to prevent breaches of contract pursuant to Civil Code section 3423 and Code of Civil Procedure section 526, subdivision (b)(5). (Opp., p. 6:18-28.) But this prohibition only applies when a contract cannot be specifically enforced. (Civ. Code, § 3423, subd. (e); Code Civ. Proc., § subd. (b)(5).) Here, the CC&Rs can be specifically enforced as they contain a provision allowing for the enforcement of their provisions through injunctive relief. (RJN, Ex. 2, § 3.14; see Zakaria v. Lincoln Property Co. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 500, 510.) Thus, injunctive relief is appropriate.

Last, Henderson argues for an evidentiary hearing based on the allegations that “[t]he moving papers include false, fabricated and manufactured evidence and testimonies.” (Opp., p. 8:2.) But Henderson fails to establish these claims with any admissible evidence as Henderson’s own declaration is undated and missing Henderson’s signature. Accordingly, based on the above evidence, Arcadia Vista HOA has adequately established they have a significant likelihood of prevailing on the merits with regards to whether Henderson breached their CC&Rs.

Balancing of the Harms

Arcadia Vista HOA contends the balance of harms weigh in favor of granting their request for a preliminary injunction based on the significant degree of harm and absence of any other remedy. As to the first ground, they contend they will suffer irreparable harm because they cannot fulfill their duties to enforce their governing documents. (Motion, p. 7:8-10, 10:22-24.) But this alone is insufficient as being unable to enforce governing documents itself is not irreparable harm. They also contend the condition of Henderson’s property is compromising the health of community residents and disrupting their quiet enjoyment. (Motion, p. 7:10-11.) The court finds this contention does establish the requisite irreparable harm.

Arcadia Vista HOA also argues they lack any other remedy to fulfill their obligations and perform the required maintenance or repairs. (Motion, p. 10:18-22.) In opposition, Henderson contends the remedy at law is adequate as Arcadia Vista HOA has sought damages in their Complaint. (Opp., p. 7:11-17.) But the fact that Arcadia Vista HOA sought compensatory damages in their Complaint does not undermine their claim that they will suffer irreparable harm, especially when the harm involves an ongoing infestation as opposed to a prior injury. In establishing a strong likelihood of prevailing on the merits, Arcadia Vista HOA is not required to show significant irreparable harm. Furthermore, Henderson fails to establish how requiring Henderson to provide access to the Arcadia Vista HOA would cause harm to Henderson that outweighs the harm of an unabated rodent infestation when Henderson is required to provide such access in the first place. Thus, the court determines that the balance of harms strongly weigh in favor of granting Arcadia Vista HOA’s injunction.

Accordingly, Arcadia Vista HOA’s motion is GRANTED.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Arcadia Vista HOA’s motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED. Henderson is ordered to provide Arcadia Vista HOA and their vendors access to Henderson’s property in order for them to engage in pest control, install roof caps, and to trim a large overgrown tree.