Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 24STCV20268, Date: 2024-11-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV20268    Hearing Date: November 6, 2024    Dept: 82

LC Acres Residents Association v. Susanna X. Kirakosyan, et al.

Case No. 24STCV20268

[Tentative] Preliminary Injunction

            LC Acres Residents Association (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Susana X. Kirakosyan (“Defendant”), among others, asserting a breach of applicable Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (“CC&Rs”).  Defendant obtained title to Lot 30 of Tract 12843, commonly known as 826 Green Lane, La Canada Flintridge, California 91011 (the “Property”) on or about April 11, 2022.  (Declaration of Susanne Whatley-Miller, ¶ 5; see also Request for Judicial Notice, Exh. 2.)  The applicable CC&Rs limited houses to one story.  (See Request for Judicial Notice, Exh. 1.)  On or about March 28, 2023, the Planning Commission for the City of La Canada Flintridge (the “City”) reviewed Defendant’s application to demolish the existing house and construct a 6,745 square-foot two-story residence with an exposed lower/third level.   (See id., Exh. 3.)  The Planning Commission approved the project but noted that it would still be subject to the CC&Rs.  (Ibid.)  This action follows.  Previously, the court granted a temporary restraining order preventing construction until this lawsuit is resolved.  Now, the court issues a preliminary injunction on the same terms.

The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo pending a decision on the merits.  (Major v. Miraverde Homeowners Ass’n. (1992) 7 Cal. App. 4th 618, 623.)  In deciding whether to grant relief, the court looks to two factors, including “(1) the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits, and (2) the relative balance of harms that is likely to result from the granting or denial of interim injunctive relief.”  (White v. Davis (2003) 30 Cal.4th 528, 553-54.)  The factors are interrelated, with a greater showing on one permitting a lesser showing on the other.  (Dodge, Warren & Peters Ins. Services, Inc. v. Riley (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1414, 1420.)  However, the party seeking an injunction must demonstrate at least a reasonable probability of success on the merits.  (IT Corp. v. County of Imperial (1983) 35 Cal.3d 63, 73-74.)  The party seeking the injunction bears the burden of demonstrating both a likelihood of success on the merits and the occurrence of irreparable harm.  (Savage v. Trammell Crow Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1562, 1571.)

            The court finds that the balance of harms favors Plaintiff.  Once construction commences, it will be difficult to reverse course should Plaintiff prevail in this action.  Defendant would have incurred all of the construction costs, and Plaintiff would have endured the effects of the construction.  Moreover, once Defendant demolishes the existing house, she cannot easily restore the status quo; she would have to construct an new house with new approvals.  By contrast, Defendant does not demonstrate sufficient harm in waiting until this action is resolved to begin the demolition and construction.

            Defendant does not demonstrate a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits.  The CC&Rs are clear: Defendant cannot build a second story on a house in Tract 12843.  Defendant should have received notice of the CC&Rs when she acquired the property.  Defendant argues that five other houses in Tract 12843 have second stories, but this evidence does not persuade the court that Defendant probably will establish a waiver of the CC&Rs for multiple reasons.  Plaintiff disputes the actual number, arguing that it is less than five houses.  Defendant concedes that Plaintiff was only formed and incorporated on May 8, 2024; Defendant provides no evidence that any of the second stores was added within the past six months; and, therefore, Defendant does not establish that “Plaintiff is in breach of the very CC&Rs which it purports to enforce.”  Finally, five houses is not enough to demonstrate a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits, given that the balance of harms favors Plaintiff.

            Defendant makes a series of other arguments which are not persuasive.  Defendant argues that there are 13 houses with second stories within 800 feet of Defendant’s property, but the CC&Rs are limited to Track 12843.  Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not complied with the Davis-Stirling Act (the “Act”).  The Act regulates common interest developments, such as a community apartment project, a condominium project, a planned development, or a cooperative.  (See Committee to Save Beverly Highlands Homes Ass’n v. Beverly Highlands Homes Ass’n (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1247, 1262; see also Civ. Code §§ 4100, 4201.)  Defendant does not establish that the Act governs this case.    

            Based upon the foregoing, the court orders as follows:

            1.         The court issues a preliminary injunction ordering that the construction may not commence until this lawsuit is resolved.

            2.         Plaintiff’s counsel shall lodge a proposed preliminary injunction for the court’s signature forthwith.

            3.         Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of service with the court.