Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 24PSCV03259, Date: 2025-03-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV03259    Hearing Date: March 6, 2025    Dept: G

Petitioner City of Baldwin Park’s Motion to Appoint a Receiver

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Petitioner City of Baldwin Park’s Motion to Appoint a Receiver is GRANTED

BACKGROUND

This is a nuisance action brought by the City of Baldwin Park (the City) to appoint a receiver. On September 30, 2024, the City filed a complaint against Respondent Yean Wu as an individual and as trustee of the Yean Wu Living Trust (Wu Trust) and Does 1-25, alleging causes of action for (1) nuisance per se and (2) appointment of receiver.

On December 11, 2024, the City filed the present motion. A hearing on the present motion is set for March 6, 2025, along with a CMC.

ANALYSIS

The City moves the court for the appointment of GS Strategies, Inc. (GS Strategies) as receiver for Wu’s property. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS the City’s motion.

Legal Standard

Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 17980.7, the City may petition the court for the appointment of a receiver in the following manner:

“In its petition to the court, the enforcement agency, tenant, or tenant association or organization 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) (emphasis added).)

Discussion

In this case, the court first considers whether the City gave proper notice. Although Health and Safety Code section 17980.7, subdivision (c) requires a petition to include proof that notice of the petition was mailed to the owners of the property at issue and posted to the property at issue at least three (3) days prior to the petition being filed, the court notes the present petition does not appear to have met such requirements. Nonetheless, because Wu has appeared in the present action and filed an answer to the City’s petition on December 6, 2024, any such defects are waived by Wu.

The court next considers whether Wu failed to comply with the City’s violation notices within a reasonable time. On December 9, 2023, the City issued a notice of violation to Wu for a property at 12723 Bess Avenue in Baldwin Park. (Ordonez Decl., ¶ 7; Ex. B.) The notice of violation listed violations that included illegal occupancy and unpermitted modifications with a correction date of December 21, 2023. (Ordonez Decl., Ex. B.) After the City conducted another inspection of Wu’s property on January 9, 2024, the City issued a declaration of substandard or dangerous conditions and posted notice at Wu’s property on January 25, 2024. (Ordonez Decl., ¶ 12, Ex. D.) The declaration noted structural hazards, life and safety hazards, and zoning standard violations. (Ordonez Decl., Ex. D.) The declaration also required all tenants to vacate Wu’s property within thirty (30) days and instructed Wu to secure services of a state-licensed professional or schedule an appointment with the City’s inspectors to address the violations within fourteen (14) calendar days. (Ordonez Decl., Ex. D.)

On March 2, 2024, the City’s code enforcement officers hand delivered and posted a copy of the City’s request for consent to inspect Wu’s property by March 7, 2024. (Ordonez Decl., ¶ 13-14, Ex. E.) On the same day, the City also issued a notice and order to repair or abate violations that included structure hazards, unsafe electrical wiring, unsafe plumbing, and hazardous mechanical equipment. (Ordonez Decl., ¶ 15-16, Ex. F.) The notice required Wu to begin abatement of the conditions within ten (10) days. (Ordonez Decl., ¶ 15, Ex. F.) On March 6, 2024, the City posted a final notice that ordered Wu to vacate the property within seven (7) days. (Ordonez Decl., ¶ 17, Ex. G.) On March 21, 2024, the City inspected Wu’s property pursuant to an inspection warrant and issued another legal notice and order to repair or abate violations the same violations and a lack of smoke detectors and carbon monoxide alarms. (Ordonez Decl., ¶ 20, 22, Ex. I.) The notice gave Wu thirty (30) days to comply. (Ordonez Decl., ¶ 22, Ex. I.) On May 10, 2024, the City recorded a notice of violation against Wu’s property, declaring the property a public nuisance. (Ordonez Decl., ¶ 23.) As of the filing of the present motion, the City claims the nuisance remains unabated. (Ordonez Decl., ¶ 24.) Based on the City’s evidence and Wu’s numerous opportunities to correct the alleged code violations, the court finds Wu failed to comply with the City’s violation notices within a reasonable time.

Last, the court determines whether GS Strategies 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, Kevin K. Randolph provided a declaration on behalf of GS Strategies. Randolph states Randolph has been appointed as receiver or receiver’s representative in over two hundred (200)  receivership cases that involve single-family, multi-family, and retail/commercial properties. (Randolph Decl., ¶ 4.) Randolph also states Randolph is a member of the California Receivers Forum and has been licensed as a member of the bar since 1990. (Randolph Decl., ¶ 3.) Based on these representations, the court finds GS Strategies is qualified to be appointed as a receiver in this action.

Accordingly, the court GRANTS the City’s motion for the appointment of a receiver.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the City’s motion to appoint a receiver is GRANTED.